BS: US Health Care Reform

Subject: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 02:05 AM

This thread is dedicated to Americans who want to study the issues attendant to "health care reform" in the United States.

I firmly believe that we have a generational opportunity to effect massive and productive change in the U.S. health care industry - approximately 16% of the US economy. Obama is here with this subject material as his principal goal. He has Democratic control of both houses.

I respectfully request that foreigners continue to provide their thoughts on the relative merits of their own systems to existing threads dedicated to that subject. I suggest that Americans interested in positive change resist responding to input from people who do not understand our system or the substantive issues to be addressed. This is complex subject matter and difficult enough even for us to understand.

As to other disagreements - let loose - have at them. Still, "right versus left," I suggest, is again diversionary and best avoided.

Take your informed opinions to your representatives to your representatives and to the streets.


Here's what I think, rightly or wrongly, in whole or in part:

Single payer is not an option.

A yet to be defined "public option" is one of two components of true Reform. Destruction of the employment-based insurance option which now predominates as a Sacred Cow to powerful interests is the other component. We need at least one, and preferably both, or there will have been no true "reform."

There is an imperfect legislative proposal pending which could accomplish both of those goals. It is called the "Healthy Americans Act" (S. 334), or the Wyden-Bennett Health Reform Plan. Searching "Wyden-Bennett" will provide a wealth of information. It was introduced in January 2007 (S. 334) by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and re-introduced in February 2009 (S. 391), each time with over a dozen co-sponsors from both major parties


I believe the Democrats have avoiding confronting the employee benefits related industries and therefore have shifted this proposal to the side. The Republicans, for the same obvious reason, won't call them out on it.

In a July 1, 2009 interview, Obama said he agreed with "with '90 percent' of Wyden's thinking" but called HAA "radical" : The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system." A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change."

I say we shouldn't allow "significant political resistance" to force us into a trillion dollar mistake that allows massive cost shifting, regressive taxation, and extraordinarily expensive efficiencies to continue.

I believe that any "reform" legislation that is passed without either a public option or an option to free employees and competitors and true innovators from employment-based coverage is not reform at all, but mere incrementalism not worthy of a "reform" title.

Here is a primer on Wyden-Bennett

Decide what YOU want Congress to do.

Good luck to us all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 03:16 AM

Single Payer:

"Single-payer health insurance operates by arranging the payment of services to doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single source established and managed by government."

"The "public option," a new government insurance program akin to Medicare..."

So, tell me. Just what is the difference here? I don't understand it.

Incidently, I am from Oregon and I have admired Ron Wyden for years. Long before he ran for office he was deeply involved in senior citizen issues. The man does his homework.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 09:54 AM

What are the chances that a bill that would have the effect of dismantling employer based insurance would ever be passed? They're calling for Obama to be shot just for suggesting the public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:20 AM

Ebbie, I don't see where Heric mentioned Medicare. None of the various "public option" plans that has surfaced would have any resemblence to Medicare at all - they are all "pools" of one sort or another.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:42 AM

When Obama said he can't get support for single payerI think he meant one huge government program to achieve universal access. The term single payer lives on in the debate, I think, out of confusion or an intent to confuse. I see the public option as a much smaller government backed / guaraneeted and government run safety net, even if they sbcontract out much of the operations.

Chances that a bill to free us from the yoke of employment based insurance would have huge opposition. The industry players (NOT the health care providers) shot it down before take-off, and now they are destroying the rest of "reform." If we're going to lay down and die without evem a push for this simple, efficient path to a sensible system, people should at least know that's what we're doing.

The current path to a multi-agency inefficient expansion of our current system underfunded by a trillion dollars or so and with no public option is a sad substitute for real reform.

Wyden-Bennett has "FEHBA For All," as its benefits package, with broad (huge) insurance pools and community rating, on standardized procedures for efficency, and at far better prices than what's forced on you by an employer's choice of plans. A LOT of paper-pushers will be forced to find new employment in productive pursuits. Almost all of the poor are subsidzied for the mandatory coverage, with some Medicaid / public option remaining as the safety net.

It is relatively simple and provides freedom. The voting public should be given the opportunity to reject it, rather than the industry lobbyists. People are always screaming that they want what federal employees (including Congress) get. Well, here it is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:56 AM

Art in my mind the public option is the final safety net where the various pools have failed to achieve their intended effect, since nothing's perfect. I think having it as a department within Medicare and run by DHHS is a perfect location for it. It's eligibility would tailored to the still-underseved populations, maybe states that aren't running their programs up to standard, or, if employment based insurance still lives, it will be a backstop for people who still get screwed by that system. It's Medicare-For-All-Who-Need-It. The only people in it are people who would be VERY glad for its availability (without their having to be unemployed AND destitute and selling the family house or farm) and a very popular program with people wishing they could get into it. If they end up there because of bad behavior by insurers then government recovery specialists go after the insurer, instead of a sick person in financial crisis who has almost no rights anyway under emploer-provided insurance.

Wyden-Bennet is (deliberately?) vague on that subject and that's laregely where negotiations and debate need to take place.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:57 AM

I think there is one big difference. Congress gets it paid for by the taxpayer.

However, of what is available, Wyden-Bennet may be the least worst option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:44 PM

And everyone making four times poverty level gets it paid in whole or in part by the taxpayer, plus, healthy/wealthy and their employers don't get to self-select themselves into inexpensive programs at low costs, and those with pre-existing or chronic conditions don't get thrown out of the pool into shitsville. If you want fancier insurance then you go out and get it, after you have met your basic obligations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:48 PM

I have not folowed the debate in detail, but surely one of the Obama plan's problems is that although it makes it compulsory for all to pay (with some cost support) those who do not will still be uninsured. That was the position as I understood it during the presidential election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:05 PM

The biggest source of the uninsured in the situation you describe are those in (or just out of) the workforce and not eligible for public support. This plan cleans up that mess far more effectively than America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. (H.R. 3200) where all of the screaming is now directed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:11 PM

. . . and this plan doesn't touch Medicare benefits so seniors would have no concerns. That underfunding crisis could be left for another day.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:25 PM

. . . and this plan doesn't shuffle costs off onto future generations (although its "safety net" / public option features need modification) so those who profess fiscal ethics as a focus would have no (or few) legitimate concerns.

The insurers and other big players are not playing nicely in the current negotiations. Force this on them.

FEHBA for all is sitting there like an apple on a shelf right in front of us.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 02:09 PM

Current, rather than historic, funding has been a feature of funded plans for a long time. It moves costs between current payers, rather than along the lifetime of a single insured. In that respect, it is characteristic of insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:28 PM

Heavy lifting which explains why Wyden (and the others) did what they did, to include high administrative costs, inequitable sharing of costs, inability to cover large segments of the population, and the inability of employers to make health care more cost-effective:


Sara Collins, "Whither Employer-Based Health Insurance?" Commonwealth Fund: 2007

Sherry Glied and Bisundev Mahato, "The Widening Health Care Gap between High- an

Reinhardt, "Employer-Based Health Insurance: A Balance Sheet." Health Affairs:

Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, "Paying for National Health Insurance

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:31 PM

Crap the first two links don't work. Anyone who cares can google them, then click on the .pdf link to read the full article.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:15 PM

Sorry to make it personal, CarolC, but doesn't Wyden-Bennett solve all of your problems, and those of any person you could name?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:30 PM

I haven't had time to read all of the material posted so far about Wyden-Bennett. It definitely sounds promising from what I've read so far. But when the phrase "would end employer based insurance" is used, I find myself wondering how I might argue in its favor with people who really like their employer based insurance. And if I can't convince the people I know who like their employer based insurance that Wyden-Bennett would be better for them, and knowing that a lot of people who like their current coverage are listening to and believing the lies that the insurance industry is spreading, the question I'm asking myself is, how will we get it passed?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:33 PM

Perhaps someone who currently has employer based insurance, and who supports Wyden-Bennett, would like to talk about why they feel this bill would be better than what they currently have through their employer. That might give me some material to work with.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:40 PM

Would somebody please tell me why a national healthcare scheme is held likely to destroy private healthcare, and employer based healthcare?


HELLO! It hasn't happened anywhere else that a national scheme exists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:41 PM

Richard Bridge: Congress doesn't get their insurance paid for by the taxpayers any more than any other government employee does, and the government pays about the same percentage of their insurance as does any other large employer.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:41 PM

Since the purpose of this thread is to discuss what IS on offer, I will not set out my concerns about a privatised but reformed system vis-a-vis Kucinich's single payer system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:55 PM

That would be me for one, and, number one, it's fair, number two, insead of eliminating unspecified waste in Medicare it has real and obvious savings by eliminating waste in employee benefits paperwork processing and sales and incompatibility, and eliminates "waste" in the form of tax subsidies to corporations to provide fancier coverage for employees at the high end, number three, I will always know that I can afford insurance even if I lose my job, at rates that are far less than COBRA, and subsidized all the way to free if I am really strapped, number 5, if I should get some condition I will have free range of employment to choose from, and number 6, I will not be exposed to cost-shifting wherever it can be snuck in (such as when I have been screwed by my employer's chosen insurer.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:57 PM

Those look like good arguments to me. When I get some time, I'll read through the material that's been posted so far.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 06:57 PM

Oh oh. Wyden is already moving forward. I just went to his website and saw his "Free Choice Proposal," which says "While health reform shouldn't blow up the current employer-based system. . . . "

I don't understand it yet. Damn it's hard to keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:07 PM

I think it's okay. He still prominently displays the Healthy Americans Act

I guess he's doing what he has to do. Since he is the one making the most sense so far I'm sticking with him.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM

Here's his statement on the floor, 6/16/09. He's staying with the principles, and the proposed legislation is still there on the shelf. It is a contender and it should not be abandoned:

Real health reform means changing the way business is done in the private insurance market. It means, Mr. President, an end to insurance company cherry-picking, where the companies take the healthy people and send the sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. That's wrong, and this Congress – Democrats and Republicans – will make it illegal. Real reform means everyone is guaranteed coverage by their choice of insurer. Under a new system, insurance companies must be required to cover all comers and they'd be required to price with fairness so you don't get discriminated against because of your gender or your health status or your age. It means that you no longer will be denied coverage or charged more because you were sick years ago or you might be sick five years from now.   

Real health reform guarantees that all Americans can choose their doctor and their health plan. As the President said yesterday, real reform will give every American access to the insurance exchange where they can choose to keep the care they have or pick a better plan that meets their families' needs. That means if you like the care you have – you can keep it. But it also means that if you don't like the care you have – you can reject it. You can reject it and choose a better plan.   Real reform will not only cover the uninsured but it will make the lives of all those who have insurance coverage better. Right now the majority of Americans, Mr. President, who are lucky enough to have employer coverage get no choice. I believe – and the President said it yesterday - those Americans deserve choice too.   

Now, some might say that this undermines the employer-based system. No, it doesn't. Rather, it makes the employer-based system more accountable at the same time that it makes health care more portable.   Real health reform means that if you leave your job or your job leaves you, you don't lose your health care coverage. . . .

Real reform takes an axe to administrative costs. Americans ought to sign up just once for health care. They ought to have their premiums taken from withholdings so they don't have to worry about making payments. They ought to go into larger, efficient groups so they are no longer left on their own on what can often be a cruel individual market. In today's non-system, people are an afterthought to the self-perpetuating bureaucracy of medical billing, reimbursement fights, coverage fights, and outright fraud. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 09:15 PM

Here's a guy in the New York Times on 8.25.09 who says we should still support HAA even if toned down a bit by the "Free Choice Proposal." Real Choice? It's Off Limits in Health Bills

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 10:37 PM

Here are some problems:
1. The Democrats won't allow any limit on malpractice awards, and malpractice insurance payments drive costs up dramatically.
2. There is no guarantee that illegal aliens won't eventually be covered under a federal plan. Previous posters call that "small potatoes," but Obama wants to introduce a program to allow illegals a "path to citizenship." We did this in 1986 with three million illegals at the time. That caused the numbers to jump to 20 million today, which means we could be looking at another 140 million in 2032. Congressman Heller offered an amendment in committee that would have prevented illegal aliens from accessing the system, and the committe voted it down, so the tax payers have every reason to conclude that the Democrats intend to make political hay out of insuring illegals for votes.
3. This is a question: Do any of the plans provide educational opportunities for young people to follow the medical profession? In the past, the AMA has tried to control the number of students entering medical school--these opportunities should include nurses and nurse-practioners.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 10:41 PM

So it would be better to let tens of thousands of legal residents in the US die every year in order to insure that no illegals will derive any benefit from our health care system, is that it? Because that's what it boils down to if we don't have health care reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:00 PM

1. Section 712 pays States to enact malpractice reform.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111z4TDLf:e195267:
2. Bennett has supported tighter immigration control. He voted in favor of the fence, making English the nation's official language, and denying citizenship rights to guest workers. He voted to uphold the legalization of nonimmigrant guest worker status.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Robert_Bennett.htm
3. Section 713(b) provides funding assistance for the training of health care providers.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111z4TDLf:e195267:

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:25 AM

"So it would be better to let tens of thousands of legal residents in the US die every year in order to insure that no illegals will derive any benefit from our health care system, is that it?"

               I think it's a mistake to assume that the American tax payer is so stupid that he/she is going to be motivated by TV advertising more than by simple mathmatical exercises that they can easily make for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:29 AM

heric - I don't think Senator Bennett's attitude on illegal immigration is really relevant here. I couldn't get the last item--the one about trainging--to open. Can that be checked out?         Thanks,

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:32 AM

Well, the simple mathmatical exercise that I have easily made for myself is that there are two people in my household who need medical care and who don't have it because of pre-existing conditions. Both of us are legal residents. So my reality is that if we don't enact health care reform just because we don't want to give health care to people who are here illegally, my husband and I could die prematurely just so we could be sure that no money gets spent on illegal aliens.

Sounds incredibly stupid to me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:40 AM

(the last item is actually the same as the first item, but scroll down - It doesn't say how much they are going to give anyone.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:56 AM

Quite a number of jurists across the world would say that the US courts' measures of damages are out of whack in a number of respcts. The US system has muddled up the compensatory nature of damages with the punitive nature of penalties. That's really a different debate.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 09:16 AM

Not when you consider that a one of a doctors largest expenses is malpractice insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:49 AM

But it encourages malpractice reform, has some incentives to encourage entry into the health care field, and doesn't open the floodgates (or Bennett would protest), so sign up Mr. Riginslinger for the real reform that the lobbyists don't want you to have.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:52 AM

heric - It's tort reform that the trial lawyers don't want you to have.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:10 AM

John Edwards Files Lawsuit against OB/GYN

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Former Senator and Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards today filed a lawsuit against the doctor who delivered Rielle Hunter's baby girl. Hunter, who was hired to perform some Internet-related consulting for the Edwards campaign, had an affair with the former Senator, according to the Edwards' admission.

In the lawsuit, Edwards charges the physicians with gross negligence in allowing Hunter to deliver a healthy baby. "I could feel in every follicle of my finely blow-dried hair that this baby did not want to create a scandal," said Edwards in a written statement. "In fact, I could channel the baby's thoughts for months. What kind of doctor would permit such a tragedy to persist under these circumstances?"

Edwards is asking for $50 million dollars, plus an undisclosed amount that is believed to be equal to payments to Hunter.

Edwards would not give an interview about this lawsuit. However, a supporter of Edwards, who would only give his name as "Bubby," said that "We all know how Rielle was passed around more than conspiracy theories at a nut, er, netroot convention. This is why Democrats stand for more government involvement in health care. It is all the fault of Bush's policies to allow these doctors to act in an unrestricted manner.

"Heck, Hillary had her husband Bill on her side. What else did you expect John Edwards to do? Besides, John knew that Elizabeth would be OK with it. After all, he channeled her thoughts also."


Posted by Isophorone at 12:33 PM

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Emma B
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:21 AM

"I think it's a mistake to assume that the American tax payer is so stupid that he/she is going to be motivated by TV advertising more than by simple mathmatical exercises that they can easily make for themselves."

Riginslinger, if that's true just why is such an obscene ammount of money being spent on advertizing - as I asked on another thread on
30 Aug 09 - 01:07 PM

may I quote from
'An Urgent Message From the League of American Voters'

"The message I have for you today is simple: we must stop Obama Care and we CANNOT let our guard down.

Just over two weeks ago the League of American Voters launched its national campaign to stop Obama Care.

In short order, our powerful ad featuring a respected medical doctor exposing the dangers of Obama Care have supporters of the Obama plan reeling.

We must continue this battle.

As I write this, the League has to firm up its TV ad buys for the next two weeks. We have already raised over $1.3 million. But we need to raise $5 million to kill off Obama Care.

P.S. The New York Times reported that liberal groups backing Obama Care are outspending groups like ours 3 to 1. Yet we are still winning the war of public opinion. This means when the public finds out the truth, they are siding with us. We just need to keep doing our work and getting our ads out"

and on such dishonest ads like the one featuring the Canadian woman, Shona Holmes?

RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:39 PM

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 12:11 PM

This weekend I watched again the old Jimmy Stewart movie, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. The tactics of the corrupt senators who quashed the support of Smith back home and manipulated the media is so clearly a picture of what is happening now with health care reform legislation.

The actual support for a public option from independents and republicans is higher than the "town hall" images show.

"According to a national Quinnipiac poll in August, 40% of Republicans and 64% of independents support the public option. In Iowa, the latest Des Moines Register poll showed 36% of Republicans and 56% of independents. For context, 36% of Senate Republicans would be 14 votes -- huge "bipartisanship."" from PCCC

Here is a video created to reach those in DC and Iowa featuring a Republican Iowan who supports the public option:
A Republican in Iowa speaks out.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:00 PM

Support for Health Care Legislation Has Stopped Falling, But Most Still Opposed

As August winds down, the good news for President Obama and congressional Democrats is that support for their proposed health care legislation has stopped falling. The bad news is that most voters oppose the plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey show that 43% of voters nationwide favor the plan working its way through Congress while 53% are opposed. Those figures are virtually identical to results from two weeks ago .

As has been true since the debate began, those opposed to the congressional overhaul feel more strongly about the legislation than supporters. Forty-three percent (43%) now Strongly Oppose the legislation while 23% Strongly Favor it. Those figures, too, are similar to results from earlier in August.

While supporters of the reform effort say it is needed to help reduce the cost of health care, 52% of voters believe it will have the opposite effect and lead to higher costs. Just 17% believe the plans now in Congress will reduce costs. This is a critical point at a time when voters see deficit reduction as more important than health care reform .

Additionally, by a 50% to 23% margin, voters believe the proposed reforms would make the quality of care worse rather than better. Voter skepticism of Congress remains high. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently penned an article advocating health care reform, but most voters were skeptical about the benefits they claim would result from its passage . (Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook .

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters believe that passage of the legislation is still at least somewhat likely. Forty-one percent (41%) say it's not likely. Those figures include just 17% who say it is Very Likely and nine percent (9%) who say it is Not at All Likely, leaving the vast majority of voters somewhere in between.

Obama's job approval ratings as measured in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll have slipped in August as the health care debate has moved to center stage. So has support for congressional Democrats . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's national unfavorable ratings have jumped to new highs .

Congress returns from its recess on September 8, and Democratic congressional leaders have vowed to pass some form of the health care plan when they return to Washington. Many town hall meetings held by congressmen have turned into protest sessions, and congressional leaders are considering procedural steps for Democrats to pass the bill on their own. If Democrats can agree on a plan that would not attract any Republican votes, 24% believe they should pass that legislation . Most (58%) say they should change the bill to attract a reasonable number of Republican votes in Congress.

It might be a challenge to win GOP votes in Congress because 87% of Republican voters around the country oppose the current legislation. That figure includes 74% who are Strongly Opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 55% oppose the legislation including 47% who Strongly Oppose it.

Among Democrats, 75% support the plan including 48% who Strongly Favor it.

As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings , 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they've been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.

One reason the town hall protests have become so intense is that just 22% of voters believe Congress has a good understanding of the health care legislation .

The latest tracking survey was conducted over two nights, the nights before and after news reports covering the death of Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy. Some advocates of reform have suggested that his passing might become a rallying point for the legislation. However, support for the legislation before and after Kennedy's death was virtually identical. Among the public, there was no increase in support or opposition.

Last summer , 50% of voters nationwide had a favorable opinion of Kennedy while 45% had an unfavorable view. Like the health care reform he championed to the end, Democrats gave Kennedy rave reviews. He was viewed favorably by 79% of those in his own party and unfavorably by 77% of Republicans. Opinions among those not affiliated with either major party was more divided: 44% favorable and 49% unfavorable.

Ironically, as Congress has debated reforms to the U.S. health care system, Americans have begun to show greater confidence in that system . Forty-eight percent (48%) of adults now say the health care system is good or excellent, and only 19% say it's poor.

In a Wall Street Journal column , Scott Rasmussen notes that "the most important fundamental [in the health care debate] is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent." Rasmussen, the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports, explains that "in political terms, the most important reality will be how the reform affects the 68% who say they have good or excellent health insurance coverage. If they end up having to change their coverage, pay significantly higher taxes or encounter some other unpleasant reality, congressional Democrats will look back on this August as a time when they should have listened more closely to the folks back home."

 ©2008 Rasmussen Reports Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:22 PM

yeah strongly support or oppose "it."

It being sewing on new appendages to the Frankenstein.

"It" will raise costs and increase waste (while providing more care to more people, with continued inequities.)

Tell the people to opine on the Wyden Bennett legislation to free them from the yoke and the paternalistic corporate control of their health benefits. It's not radical in the least. It's basic freedom of choice with funding of equalized premiums for ALL.

Here's a 19 page section by section description of the entire proposed legislation translated into plain English.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:31 PM

Nate Silver's web site, fivethirtyeight.com, is excellent in putting polls into an understandable and accurate perspective.

Poll: Most Don't Know What "Public Option" Is -- Including Pollsters
"...This is also why relatively small changes in wording can trigger dramatic shifts in support for the public option, which has been as high as 83 percent in some polls and as low as 35 percent in others depending on who is doing the polling and how they're asking the questions. ..."
CLICK HERE

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:33 PM

Oh here you go, rig: Section 123 prevents illegal aliens from receiving subsidy payments and requires legal aliens to particpate in the premiums.

What Medicaid does with those people is whatever Medicaid does.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:33 PM

Frankly, I'm surprised the opposition has stopped falling. It must be due to advertising on the part of the Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:38 PM

also from the article at fivethirtyeight.com that I linked above...

"More generally, there seems to be a sort of arm's-race on both sides of the debate to conduct crappy, manipulative polls on health care reform, and the public option in particular. This [internet based] poll belongs in the 'crap' pile, as do most of the others. Defenders of the public option, however, should have little to fret about: the most neutrally and accurately-worded polls on the public option -- these are the ones from Quinnipiac and Time/SRBI -- suggest that their position is in the majority, with 56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option and 33-36 percent opposed."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 02:32 PM

There would be less leeway for this problem to occur if anyone knew what the public option is and whether it is essential or negotiable.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:05 PM

Good point, heric!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:57 PM

That is part of the point made in the article I linked to. People generally don't understand what "public option" means.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:47 PM

"Public option" doesn't seem very hard to understand from this distance. If people over there don't understand it, doesn't that suggest that they don't want to understand it?

As the saying goes "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:56 PM

See the article on how poll questions are being worded.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 06:00 PM

They think they understand it based on the lies they've been told by the insurance industry propaganda campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 07:31 PM

Please stay focused. If anyone knows where the public option under America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) (sections 221 -226)stands, please just tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 07:42 PM

"...56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option..." ~ Alice

One minute people are giving poll numbers about the "single-payer plan".

Next minute we get polls about support for "public option".

Next minute it's about support for HR 3200.

Next minute it's about ObamaCare. He wrote not a word of HR 3200. He has not even read most of it.

"...led by confusion boats, mutiny from stern to bow..."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:02 PM

The way I understood it, everyone would be entitled to participate in the public option unless they qualify for Medicaid or their employer provides them with sufficient health insurance, but they could be forced into it at their employer's election, with premiums to be determined and mutiple benefits packages to be offered.

I don't know where it stands now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:05 PM

(or FEHBA or VA or Medicare)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:30 PM

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if at least part of the debate was about reducing costs, rather than concentrating solely on how these exorbitant costs will be paid. We're faced with doctors (who are represented by the second-strongest union in the US, and who are enjoying a government-granted monopoly status), health insurance companies (who are out to grab whatever they can) and drug companies (who are doing the same). Medical training is restricted (costs are astronomical and no new medical schools are opening), and lawyers are happily humming to themselves (I think it's Sweet Sue). Now health insuers are trying to push through a co-pay limit of 35%; it won't get better until somebody does something to make it better.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:33 PM

If I have that about right (never mind the funding questions - $2 billion into a pot then find the rest from Medicare "waste" and tax the rich only and, well yeah premiums but still underfunded by $1 trillion over ten years):

Now might be a good time to go back and look at the beautiful simplicity if the Wyden-Bennet legislation or its 19 page it's description of the entire proposed legislation translated into plain English.

Everyone is entitled to participate in it (including federal employees and Congress), but they needn't bother if they have Medicare (or VA), and Medicaid will be modified to become its safety net.

Everyone in a state pays the same amount for the FEHBA-analogous benefits package, free or subsidized up to 400% of poverty, and if your coworkers and employer agree you want to go with employer-provided insurance - you can. And of you want to buy Cadillac insurance (after you have paid for and bought into the statewide pool) you go right ahead.

Obama says it's 90% right, but too "radical" to pass. What he means is your employer, the insurers, the employee benefits sub-industries, and the provider industry and the pharma and biomedical device industries don't want it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:38 PM

Oh Dick you are a Wyden-Bennett candidate. Those industries don't want (almost certainly will never let you have) Wyden-Bennett BECAUSE it will force level-playing-field competition with all people aware of the cost of their identical premiums for a basic FEHBA benefits package.

Thousands of insurers will be fighting for market share on a level instead of lopsided field where the healthy/wealthy AND the poor or sick are all funded and treated equally. They will push hard on pharma and the others to also compete. (They will also push on the health care providers but - shhhh.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:53 PM

No matter... The next month will be interesting... What we need now is for Obama to turn into Ross Perot, charts, graphs and all...

The right has contolled the debate by not allowing it to occur and I think Obma has been smrat to let the right blow themselves out in August... Yeah, I realize this is a minority view but the right loves its temper tandrums and I'm thinking that they have really shown their collective asses and September will be a different game... Obama knows that the progressives are just about fed up and ready to jump ship... He knows that... Watch for Obama as Professor Perot...

BTW, I agree that a public option isn't negotiable... It has to be in the final legislation... It may take changing the rules in the Senate but, hey, change is tough on everyone and there is going to be political blow-back if real reform goes thru... That is normal... The Repubs have alot to loose here... This is their Waterloo... Not Obama's...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 09:47 PM

In Wyden-Bennett, states are required, with assistance and funding from DHHS, to actively seek out children (18 and younger - 3x poverty or less) to ensure they are receiving care, regardless of their parents' eligibility or participation. (Section 201).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:16 PM

Ok, I've read most of the literature presented here on Wyden-Bennett. What, in the opinion of the thread originator, are the significant differences between Wyden-Bennett and HR 3200?

It looks to me like Wyden-Bennett doesn't have a public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:30 PM

Bit of a rush here, but did you notice that with the HR 3200 "public option," if you qualify for Medicaid you stay on Medicaid, as-is, whereas with Wyden-Bennett, you get free FEHBA benefits, the same as a US Congressperson's basic package, and the same as every other person in the country (unless they are on Medicare or VA)?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:47 PM

I don't see where it says that in the PDF description of the bill. Point me in the right direction to find that part?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:57 PM

Oh you would ask that. It's in section 104(a)

-(disabled is included because they're under Medicare)

-(Section 631(d) prevents revisions to a state Medicaid plan that would vreat a gap in coverage - i.e preserving it's safety net function)

Section 104(a):

Subject to section 631(d), the Secretary, States, and health insurance issuers shall ensure that any nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual eligible under title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual eligible under a waiver under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) covered under a HAPI plan provided through the State HHA receives medical assistance under State Medicaid plans in a manner that--

(1) is provided in coordination with, and as a supplement to, the coverage provided the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual under the HAPI plan in which the individual is enrolled;

(2) does not supplant the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual's coverage under a HAPI plan;

(3) ensures that the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual receives all items or services that are not available (or are otherwise limited) under the HAPI plan in which they are enrolled but that is provided under the State plan (or provided to a greater extent or in a less restrictive manner) under title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any waiver under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) of the State in which the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual resides; and

(4) ensures that the family of the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual is not charged premiums, deductibles, or other cost-sharing that is greater than would have been charged under the State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act of the State in which the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual resides if such coverage was not provided as a supplement to the coverage provided the child under the HAPI plan in which the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual is enrolled.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:18 PM

I think this bill is a beautiful work of art, mostly for the distinctions you just asked for, but also in the minutiae. For example, note that the first line puts this burden, to assure that no gaps in coverage for the poor occur, on THREE entities, each owing an independent obligation: DHHS, the State, and the insurer in question.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:29 PM

Just a reminder - Congressmen pay for what they get under FEHBP...about 25% of the total cost (the same as any other Federal employee), and that can be over $300 per month depending upon the specific plan and option they select.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:31 PM

Where does it say that the coverage would be equivalent to a US Congressperson's basic package?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:47 PM

So call this a public option or don't, but under Wyden-Bennett the benefits for the poor equal the benefits of everyone in the nation, reimbursed by the government and backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury, which is in turn reimbursed by premiums paid by every person in the country (unless poor.) All of those people are paying (close to) the same rate as everyone elsee in their state based on actuarial data for almost the entire population of the state, pre-existing or chronic conditions be damned, with insurers trying to beat the actuarial rates by a small margin, gaining customers.

If these people weren't paying it through "premiums," (paid by withholdings and on tax returns) they'd still be paying it as taxes as they are now, without the benfit of the tax deductions now going to corporations (and richer people) as a regressive tax.

I would call that a public option, and one which funds health care honestly, without irrational cost shifting, without a regressive tax, and without the private insurers feasting by insuring the healthy/wealthy, while shuffling the poor and unhealthy onto the taxpayers (which you may have noticed are the same people they are insuring.)

That last point is the main point. It's hard to see it until you see it - and then it is as plain as day.

When you throw in cost shifting, regressive taxation, and medical-bill-induced bankruptcy, the "public" is already paying more than 50% of the nation's health care costs, while feeding a gluttonous industry.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:52 PM

(Yes thanks Art - I should drop that little flourish.)

Carol: Section 111(b)(1)(A):

Each HAPI plan offered through an HHA shall--

(A) provide benefits for health care items and services that are actuarially equivalent or greater in value than the benefits offered as of January 1, 2009, under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, including coverage of an initial primary care assessment and annual physical examinations;

(B) provide benefits for wellness programs and incentives to promote the use of such programs;

(C) provide coverage for catastrophic medical events that result in out-of-pocket costs for an individual or family if lifetime limits are exhausted;

(D) designate a health care provider, such as a primary care physician, nurse practitioner, or other qualified health provider, to monitor the health and health care of a covered individuals (such provider shall be known as the `health home' of the covered individual);

(E) ensure that, as part of the first visit with a primary care physician or the health home of a covered individual, such provider and individual determine a care plan to maximize the health of the individual through wellness and activities prevention;

(F) provide benefits for comprehensive disease prevention, early detection, disease management, and chronic condition management that meets minimum standards developed by the Secretary;

(G) provide for the application of personal responsibility contribution requirements with respect to covered benefits in a manner that may be similar to the cost sharing requirements applied as of January 1, 2009, under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, except that no contributions shall be required for--

(i) preventive items or services; and

(ii) early detection, disease management, or chronic pain treatment items or services; and

(H) comply with the requirements of section 112.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:58 PM

One distinction stemming from HR 3200 leaving people on Medicaid: They can only get care from Medicaid providers. Wyden-Bennet requires all Medicare (i.e. about everyone) to participate, and they don't need to even do that since every provider will want to be on this program.

Note above there are other requirements beyond basic FEHBA coverage, including wellness care and several basic preventaive care items which the poor need but don't get very well from Medicaid, and these can have no co-pays or contribution requirements.


SEC. 112. SPECIFIC COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- Each HAPI plan offered through a HHA shall--

(1) provide for increased portability through limitations on the application of preexisting condition exclusions, consistent with that provided for under section 2701 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, except that the State shall develop procedures to ensure that preexisting exclusion limitations do not apply to new enrollees who had no applicable creditable coverage immediately prior to the first enrollment period;

(2) provide for the guaranteed availability of coverage to prospective enrollees in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(3) provide for the guaranteed renewability of coverage in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2712 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-12), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, except that the prohibition on market reentry provided for under such section shall be deemed to be 2 years;

(4) prohibit discrimination against individual enrollees and prospective enrollees based on health status in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2702 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-1), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(5) provide coverage protections for enrollees who are mothers and newborns in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2704 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-3), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(6) provide for full parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(7) provide coverage for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2706 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act; and

(8) prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information, as provided for under the amendments made by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-233).

(b) Guidelines- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop guidelines for the application of the requirements of this section.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:01 AM

But is a HAPI plan the same as the kind of medicaid wraparound that they're talking about for those eligible for medicaid?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:13 AM

No HAPI is the FEHBA (equivalent) plan and Medicaid is the wrap around.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:23 AM

Wyden Bennett gets them out of Medicaid and into the same plan everyone has but in case (and I don't know where it would happen) the main plan doesn't cover something they would have had if they had just stuck with Medicaid, Medicaid must provide that service.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:21 AM

You know what I'm not likely to come up with a good side by side comparison of Wyden-Bennett to HR 3200. It's like comparing a tiny ball of plutonium to a beach ball that has gone flat. As I've said, it now looks like they are sewing new appendages onto Frankenstein, or gluing solar panels on top of an eighties Chrysler. As the sausage making goes on, the insurers and providers and all the profiteers are going to say go ahead and throw in all sorts of good stuff for consumers, they'll like it and we'll get more money. That's probably what will get enacted. Insurer mandates and employer mandates. Not a good public option; not a dismantling of the employer-run perversity.

We'll see. If you want me to keep going on why Wyden-Bennett is change we can believe in I'll sure do that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:29 AM

Our current system, if you want to call it a system, is a rotting edifice of poor care, lousy record keeping, out-of-control charges, unnecessary tests and procedures, no customer service, complex and esoteric billing procedures, and caustically expensive pharmaceuticals. Anyone who doesn't see this either has a vested interest in the system as is, or is ignorant of the impact its skyrocketing costs are having on our country. We currently spend 20% of our GDP on healthcare.
This system of employer-bankrolled insurance began during World War 2 when the government imposed a wage freeze on business. In order to attract employees, creative businesses began to offer health insurance as a substitute for a wage increase. So, essentially, we have paid for health insurance through our employers our entire lives in lieu of salary. A 22 year old who starts work today, can in effect expect to pay 1.3 million dollars in health care insurance expenses. How have we come to believe that someone else is bankrolling our health care? Because we see only the deductions on our checks, not the medical bills. In fact, most of us have no idea what an MRI prescribed by our doctor will cost, and we could care less because, after all, we're not paying for it. This is the reason the costs of MRIs have skyrocketed...there is no competition.
Compare that to the cost of Lasik surgery, which is rarely covered by insurance. Lasik when first introduced, cost around 8,000 dollars. You can now have Lasik done for 500 or less. Why? Because patients spend money out of their pockets for Lasik, and so doctors and clinics must compete.
Although I support the Obama plan as superior to the existing mess, it will not address these basic issues. What it will do is assign maximum costs for things like MRIs and drugs, and negotiate huge discounts with providers. It will force insurance companies to compete with these lower costs. It cannot eliminate things like batteries of unneeded tests. Clinics will make up for lost revenue due to cost controls by increasing the volume of service.
The best approach would have us carry insurance only for major catastrophic medical issues. For ordinary treatment, we should be allowed by the government to invest money in a tax-exempt medical fund, from which funds can be used for treatment which we would negotiate on our own. I am pretty sure that we would all know exactly, at that point, what an MRI costs, and knowing that would allow us to make an informed buying decision. Clinics and Doctors seeking our business would be forced to be cost competitive and transparent in their billing. Government should still play a role in providing care for the indigent, and for sponsoring wellness programs.
I am under no illusion that such a system would be easy to establish, but we must recognize that, until the basic flaws of the existing system are recognized, no solution will effectively tame the monster.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 09:51 AM

That plan is the HSA (health savings account) plan and it doesn't work for people with pre-existing conditions who can't get coverage and for people whose insurance companies deny needed catastrophic care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 09:56 AM

Back to Wyden-Bennett... I'm having difficulty understanding that whole bit about the medicaid. Why would they need a separate wrap around? If the HAPI coverage isn't good enough for the people on medicaid, why is it good enough for everyone else?

The thing that really scares me about that is that medicaid doesn't pay for a lot of things that other programs do pay for. So if they are anticipating that HAPI coverage will leave gaps that are covered by medicaid, we will see a significant reduction in the quality of care people receive even beyond what we see today, which is bad enough.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 10:43 AM

"Two weeks ago, President Obama offered to cut several hundred billion more dollars out of the Medicare and Medicaid budget to help make room for health care reform. This sort of gesture ought to appeal to conservatives, right? Apparently not. The Heritage Foundation warned, "At a time when Medicare is dangerously close to bankruptcy, it is shortsighted to funnel funds into the creation of another government-run program instead of shoring up Medicare." A National Review editorial complained, "These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments are nothing more than reimbursement reductions with no empirical or economic basis to justify them."

No empirical basis to justify them? Since when do conservatives require an empirical basis to justify cutting social spending?

The health care debate has been presented as a conflict between spendthrift Democrats and skinflint Republicans. The reality is closer to the opposite. Conservatives may make up the strongest opponents of new government spending (to cover the uninsured), but they also make up the strongest opponents of cutting existing spending. Health care has become the new defense spending--a category of public outlay that the right has trained itself to defend in even the most wasteful iterations.

The U.S. health care system, as you probably realize, is a vast cesspool of waste. We spend nearly twice as much on health care as the average advanced country and have no better results to show for it. Alas, every dollar of what we call waste is what somebody in the industry calls "income." So anything that makes the system more efficient makes somebody unhappy, and that somebody has a team of lobbyists." New Republic

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 11:22 AM

Here's what you currently get under New York State Medicaid

Here's what you get under Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan

Under HR 3200, if you are Medicaid eligible you get Medicaid.

Under Wyden-Bennett, you get both. The standard plan has the primary coverage obligation and Medicaid as it currently exists becomes the supplemental coverage.

Maybe some Medicaid plans have more services applicable to mental health or chronic care, I don't know, but anyone can find them for their own state. If you do find anything, don't worry, because they are not going away.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 11:46 AM

Note, with regard to actively seeking out children (18 and younger - 3x poverty or less) to ensure they are receiving care, those children (like everyone else) must have a primary care physician selected or appointed to take responsibility for monitoring their care. So the current problem of people not applying for benefits simply out of confusion or lack of knowledge, gets addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:01 PM

Despite smug statements to the contrary, HSA is a concept, not a "plan". Any reform of our health care system must include a catastrophic insurance program open to all Americans, in which participation of all Americans is required, and with fixed premiums based solely on age. Government regulation and participation would be necessary so that all are covered, without underwriting for specific risk factors.
Such a program would eventually replace Medicare and Medicade, classic examples of the over-spending abuses and convoluted billing that the health care industry counts on to perpetuate its profits.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:02 PM

I'll bet the Medicaid benefits they are keeping from erasure are largely in-home care or assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:10 PM

"Any reform of our health care system must include a catastrophic insurance program open to all Americans, in which participation of all Americans is required."

Agree. The FEHBA equivalent plan has (and requires) that for everyone in the country.

That, and basic care for the underserved. Wyden Bennet excels at both.

(A problem with HSAs is that plans might offer them in connection with the basic plan, and attract the wealthier who can afford a health savings plan, thereby to getting a competitive advanatge. That can be managed by regulation.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:21 PM

"'Any reform of our health care system must include a catastrophic insurance program open to all Americans, in which participation of all Americans is required.'

Agree. The FEHBA equivalent plan has (and requires) that for everyone in the country."

. . with the twin benefits of protecting everyone from financial disaster and stopping the cost-shifting that necessarily follows from those disasters.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:39 PM

People can characterize my statements about HSAs as "smug" if they want, but as someone without access to insurance myself, and having attempted to get insurance through an HSA, I am very suspicious of people trying to divert health care reform in that particular direction. It really does boil down to a matter of life and death for some of us, myself and JtS included. So please excuse me if I take this matter very seriously.

The problem I have with using New York's medicaid program as an example is that New York state may have (and probably does have) much better medicaid coverage than states like West Virginia, where I had medicaid coverage for several years. In some states, medicaid has huge gaps in coverage. Does Wyden-Bennett use New York's medicaid coverage as the standard for the whole country?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:48 PM

No, I picked a state at random (well, because it is large.) Do it for any state. Start at coverageforall.com for an overview of the available programs in any state, then google "[State] Medicaid benefits."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

Another problem with the HSA model is that it would encourage people to put off getting care for all kinds of problems that, if left untreated, will become catastrophic and far more expensive later on, which ultimately causes everyone's costs to rise. The HSA "concept" is penny wise and pound foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:15 PM

coverageforall.ORG

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:21 PM

West Virginia

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 02:45 PM

Based on the information I've seen so far on HR 3200 and Wyden-Bennett, I honestly can't say which one I think is better. I may be leaning a bit toward HR 3200 with a public option, and partly that's for a rather glib reason. I saw that Lieberman was there with Wyden when he announced the bill and he appeared to support it. I don't trust Lieberman on this subject because I find him to be too much on the side of the insurance industry cabal.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 03:38 PM

The insurance industry does not want you to have this. They would rather that public health funding be done by taxpayers paying the government. They would have a lot more people to provide for with this, but not the people they make the big bucks from.

Obama says this plan is 90% right, but "too radical."



Note also (about preserving Medicaid): Under section 104(a)(4), if someone has a Medicaid benefit entitlement under existing programs, the HAPI (FEHBA equivalent plan) is not allowed to demand any copays or contributions from them (that they wouldn't have had under Medicaid.)

Instead of getting Medicaid, the poor now would get:

(1) Medicaid;
(2) The Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan;
(3) A primary care provider to devise and monitor a care plan (with expert understanding of the benefits now available, even if the patient isn't up to speed on them), for free wellness care, comprehensive disease prevention, early detection, disease management, chronic pain treatment, and chronic condition management;
(4) Guaranteed nondiscrimination in any plan based on health status (or genetics); and
(5) Peri-natal care as good as anyone's.

Under HR 3200, with the public option as it was written, they would get:
(1) Medicaid.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 03:59 PM

There are several articles stating that plenty of Senators and Congresspersons publicly support this Bill "because it's right," but privately will not support it because the lobbyists will destroy their careers.

Can't prove it, but I believe it. I just think people should look and see what we are not going to get, because we won't demand it against the special interests.

I also believe that Obama should put his Presidency on the line, force this, lose his re-election bid, and go down as one of the great public servants in history. People would soon learn that he called out the insurers (and others) on their Great Game and ended it. And he's still young.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 04:41 PM

Seems to me the Senate is more likely to get its way than the House (although I could be wrong about that). So the Wyden-Bennet plan just might happen, although possibly in a modified form.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 05:03 PM

I read somewhere that suggested a Senate bill cannot be subjected to the Reconciliation procedure as proposed to force something through, but I don't understand it and view it as a procedural detail.

Wyden-Bennett will not happen absent an unlikely public awareness.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 09:28 PM

Public awareness is an illusive term.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 11:45 AM

Bobert be right again.

" Axelrod said: 'There are a lot of ideas on the table and now it's time to pull those strands together and finish the work.'

That suggests the president could for the first time put in writing the elements of a health care plan, drawing from the common pieces of measures approved in three House committees and the Senate committee formerly headed by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in an attempt to spur Congressional action. To date he has deferred to Congress to write legislation following his general principles, including a public insurance option to create competition for insurance companies.

The White House recalibration in part reflects how patience has run out with the efforts of [those idiots.]"

NYT 9/1/09

see, also Obama Set To Reveal Specific Health Reform Details In Strategy Shift

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 11:50 AM

As I see it, wonkishness prevails on this issue. Whatever bill gets through the Senate,
with all these obstructions by failing to define the implications of each provision for the public, the Health Care Reform will turn out to be a jumbled mess and a favor to the Insurance and Big Pharma.

Obfuscation has been the tactic of the lobbyists, corporate networks and pundits and there's no sign that this will change with a bill that tinkers around the edges.

The only solution to the problem of health care that we have is a nationalized Single Payer system as they have in other parts of the civilized world that work.



We won't get what we need because the politicians, insurance companies, and Big Pharma control the semantics and the dialogue. In short, any "reform" turns out to be a whitewash.

The solution is to keep hammering away until we get a national health program that is exclusive of Big Insurance and Pharma's control. Take words like "public option" and redefine it for the lobbyists. Public option means that the government will supply a health care plan that competes with the private one and will be available to all who need it.
What's so complicated about that?

Health care reform means government regulation over the "malpractice insurance" malpractice by the insurance companies toward the medical profression. It means regulating the Insurers and the Drug Companies in the same way as we have established the SEC (question as to how that has been implemented).

All this wonkishness just confuses the public and is a weapon used by the lobbyists,corporatists,insurance and drug companies to control the debate.

BTW, does anyone figure into the cost of public health care that of Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakinstan? 57% of the national budget

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 11:57 AM

So they let us suffer through all that screaming about The Plan That Never Was, and now Obama is going to step out in the stage and say something coherent and sensible. He is going to hit the re-set button, no doubt about it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 12:11 PM

"...does anyone figure into the cost of public health care that of Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakinstan? 57% of the national budget..."

Can somebody explain what that statement applies to? Does it have something to do with the US?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 10:09 PM

I suppose, pdq, if Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan took 57% of the federal budget, it would make sense to stop funding those adventures. The percentage doesn't ring true to me, but whatever it costs, I think the administration ought to quit funding those adventures, and I wonder why it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 07:41 AM

Maybe Obama will put forward a plan of his own when he addresses Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 11:39 AM

We're on hiatus until Wednesday night. He could very well have planned it this way - let people have their free speech scream fest for a while. Yesterday the White House said the contents of his speech were fully determined a while ago.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 11:44 AM

I hope he addresses the fundamental mishmash instead of just trying to do something incremental. He'll have a fight on his hands, but at least it will be a worthwhile fight.


A\

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 11:58 AM

Me too, but a guy in the NYT pointed out yesterday that it's not just his Presidency on the line if he is dramatic, but the potential loss of 20+ Democratic seats in the House of Representatives next year (and the loss of their majority.) He may not be able to bring them along for this one fight.

I can tolerate incrementalism and experimentation towards a productive goal, but not plain old give the consumers lots of free shit so that they are happy, we get credit, and the industry gets a lot more money to no sensible end. I fully expect that he will NOT go that route.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 12:16 PM

"... the industry gets a lot more money to no sensible end."

I don't see how one can come to that conclusion.

I don't think we spend too much on health care. We spend too little.

In 1993 with HillaryCare being pushed, it was said that 1/7 of the US economy was health care.

This year when ObamaCare is being pushed, it is suppose to be up to 1/6.

I look foreward to being 1/5 or more.

What is more important to the health of our people? Marijuana? Pornography? Rap noise CDs? Various effluent from our "entertainment industry"?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 12:29 PM

For every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. That adds about $50 per person per month to the health care premiums.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care

I don't want to demonize health insurers or anyone else, but I do want to see a lot of people become unemployed, with the savings going (1) to provide better basic care to the Medicaid population (their high end needs are met),(2) a safety net for employed workers (especially low paid workers) (3) an affordable option for the self-employed (and low paid workers), and (4) Mandatory catastrophic coverage for all. There is a LOT of mispent money and mispent tax breaks (subsidies) that can be redirected to accomplish this.

Good luck to us on Wednesday.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 12:47 PM

I used to agree with that pdq, but from 2000 to 2008, the U.S. economy grew by $4.4 trillion; of that growth, roughly one out of every four dollars was spent on health care. Household expenditures on health care already exceed those on housing. That share is growing, and a Medicare funding crisis is coming. We're now at $2.4 trillion per year. We should spend what we have to spend, but not as wastefully as possible.

That's why I despise Congressional sausage manufacturing. They haven't even set a clear target as to who we are going to help and how. How in the world can they say the Medicad population stays on Medicaid, and the "public option" (safety net for the employed - as I see it) is non-essential, but with a $trillion underfunding over ten years in addition to the $2.4 trillion per year? ($1 trillion is only 4% of the total spending over ten years, but still . . . )

(That $2.4 trillion per year figure comes from the same Atlantic article. I'm sure there are widely varying estimates, but aren't we approaching twice the per capita spending of European nations? Pick your sources but I doubt you'll come up with something less than an amazing number.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:52 PM

The problem is that a huge chunk of the money we're spending on health care is not going to pay for health care. It's going to pay for corporate profits, lobbyists, dividends to share holders, obscene executive salaries and bonuses, and other non-health care related expenses.

Just think of how many lives could be saved if all of that money was going toward providing people with needed care instead of lining the pockets of greedy people. (The answer is many tens of thousands, and certainly a hell of a lot more than the number of people killed on 9/11, for which we have fought two wars and are still paying through the nose).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:57 PM

"That's why I despise Congressional sausage manufacturing. They haven't even set a clear target as to who we are going to help and
how..."

          Yes, heric, I think if the president is going to move this forward, he's going to have to be a lot more specific than anyone has been to date.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:05 PM

Here's one little and effective suggestion about cost shifting:

"After some negotiation with New Jersey's hospital industry, the governor on May 5, 2008, introduced Assembly Bill No. 2909, limiting the prices charged uninsured residents of New Jersey with an income below 500 percent of the federal poverty line to 115 percent of the applicable Medicare rates. By August 2008, the state assembly had passed the bill, and the governor promptly signed it into law.

As President Obama prepares his address to the joint chambers of Congress on Sept. 9, he would do well by America's middle class to follow New Jersey's lead by proposing to apply this upper limit nationwide."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/ending-hospital-price-discrimination-against-the-uninsured/

(There's no reason to limit it to 500% of poverty, either - that's just what the provider lobbyists extracted since they don't collect on those charges from the poor anyway, they attack the middle class with insurance problems. Not even uninsured, necessarily - Hospitals can and do do it if the insurer didn't have to pay the charges in part or in full.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM

Here is the article about Obama's political problems with dramatic change.

It was by editorialist David Brooks, who has an even better article about the perverse financial incentives, and the damaging effetcs of incrementalism here .

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:25 PM

Forgive me I have to set that second article out in full. He says everything I've tried to say:

If I were magically given an hour to help Barack Obama prepare for his health care speech next week, the first thing I'd do is ask him to read David Goldhill's essay, "How American Health Care Killed My Father," in the current issue of The Atlantic. That essay would lift Obama out of the distracting sideshows about this public plan or that cooperative option. It would remind him why he got into this issue in the first place.

Goldhill's main message is that the American health care system is dysfunctional at the core. He vividly describes how the system hides information, muddies choices, encourages more treatment instead of better care, neglects cheap innovation, inflates costs and unintentionally increases suffering.

The essay is about the real problem: the insane incentives. Goldhill is especially good on the way the voracious health care system soaks up money that could go to education, the environment, economic development and a thousand other priorities. Health care, he writes, "simply keeps gobbling up national resources, seemingly without regard to other societal needs."

Then I'd ask Obama to go to the Brookings Institution Web site and read a report called "Bending the Curve: Effective Steps to Address Long-Term Health Care Spending Growth." This report was written by a bipartisan group of battle-tested experts, including Mark McClellan, David Cutler, Elizabeth McGlynn, Joseph Antos and John Bertko.

This report also focuses on the key issue: perverse incentives. It's got a series of proposals on how to restructure insurance markets, reorganize provider payments, change the way effectiveness-research findings are implemented and cap the employee tax deduction.

These aren't pie-in-the-sky ideas. The authors have combed through the bills that are already out there. They've taken good ideas that are now in embryonic or neutered form. They show how the ideas would work if fully implemented. We're not going to revolutionize 18 percent of the American economy overnight, but these proposals would put us on the path toward real reform.

We're not on that path right now. Several months ago, President Obama made a promise: People with health insurance would be able to keep exactly what they have.

We all understand why he made that promise. He wanted to reassure people who are happy with what they've got. He wanted to mollify the industries that have a vested interest in the status quo.

But Obama's promise sent the reform effort off the rails. It meant that efforts to expand coverage marched ahead, but efforts to fundamentally reform the system got watered down.

Instead of true reform we got a series of bills that essentially cement the present system in place. The proposals do not fundamentally challenge the fee-for-service system. They don't make Americans more accountable for their own health care spending. They don't reduce costs. They just add more people into the mess we've got.

The president made this promise to ease passage. But it ended up hollowing out the substance of the reform. And the political benefits didn't even materialize. Voters are still spooked by the costs, the centralization and the cuts they are sure will come.

If I had a magic hour with the president, I'd tell him this is his ninth-inning chance. He can stay on the current path. He might be able to pass some incremental bill that extends coverage. But he won't have tackled the fundamental problems that first drove him to this issue. He won't have cut health care inflation. He won't have prevented a voracious system from bankrupting the nation, defunding the schools, pushing down wages and impoverishing the young.

On the other hand, he can shift back to the core issue: the perverse incentives that make this system such a mess. He can embrace proposals—like the Brookings proposals or, more comprehensively, the Wyden-Bennett bill — that address the structural problems instead of simply papering over them.

This remains a politically risky strategy. There are many industries that have an interest in making sure health care spending rises to 20 percent of G.D.P., and then 22 and then 24. But the president's in political hot water already. He got there trying to dodge the hard issues. He might as well be there because he's fighting for something real.

There are many people telling him to go incremental. They're telling him to just enlarge the current system a bit and pay for it by pounding down a few Medicare fees. But did Barack Obama really get elected so he could pass the Status Quo Sanctification and Extension Act?

This is not the time to get incremental. It's the time to get fundamental. Reform the incentives. Make consumers accountable for spending. Make price information transparent. Reward health care, not health services. Do what you set out to do. Bring change.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:42 PM

Repeat: Under Wyden-Bennett, instead of getting Medicaid, the poor now would get:

(1) Medicaid;
(2) The Blue Cross/Blue Shield (FEHBA) Standard Plan;
(3) A primary care provider to devise and monitor a care plan (with expert understanding of the benefits now available, even if the patient isn't up to speed on them), for free wellness care, comprehensive disease prevention, early detection, disease management, chronic pain treatment, and chronic condition management;
(4) Guaranteed participation in any standarad plan without discrimination based on health status (or genetics); and
(5) Peri-natal care as good as anyone's.

Under HR 3200, with the public option as it was written, and as it is still written, they would get:
(1) Medicaid.

For children up to age 18, even if their parents are crack-heads or illegals, the state would be required, with federal assistance and funding, to actively seek them out and provide all of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 09:12 PM

postsript: In the long article I just pasted, Brooks starts off with a recommendation for David Goldhill's essay, "How American Health Care Killed My Father," in the current issue of The Atlantic. Goldhill is an HSA proponent too radical for me - so I never referred to it. Wyden Bennett is NOT too radical, even though Brooks (NYT) describes it as "more comprehensive" than Goldhill.

(I wonder why Obama is bringing in all the progressive Congresspeople on Tuesday or Wednesday, shortly before his speech.)

Good luck to us all!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 12:27 PM

The scene: On the front porch at a retirement center, two very old men, George and Gus, are sitting side by side in rocking chairs, conversing.

George: Heard you had a meeting with the death panel.

Gus: Yep, I sure did.

George: Anything happen?

Gus: Yep. They said I should die next Tuesday. Actually, they said I should "plan to transition to post-viability status" next Tuesday. You know how those government people talk.

George: Won't see you at bingo next Wednesday, then, I suppose.

Gus (chuckling): Oh, yes, you will. Death-panel decisions trigger a
mandatory appeal. It takes them 90 days just to file the paperwork for that.

George: Oh. So you're good for three more months? Buy the green bananas, brother.

Gus (chuckling again): More like 18 months. It takes them that long to review the mandatory appeal after they get the paperwork. And then I can appeal the appeal to the Federal Board of Death Panel Appeals Appeals. That takes a couple of years longer.

George: So now you're up to 3 1/2 years.

Gus: Darn near an eternity.

George: Say, how old are you, anyway?

Gus: 104. I was kind of thinking I might be nearing the end of the road. But now it looks as if I can't go until 107 at the earliest. Too much red tape to get through first.

George (snorting): Not exactly express checkout, is it?

Gus: That's for sure. You should see the paperwork I have to do.

George: Don't bother filling it out. What are they going to do? Kill you?

(They begin laughing uproariously.)

Gus: Guess what they told me? "Failure to file is a federal offense
punishable by up to five years in prison."

George: Well, there you go. Add that to the 3 1/2 years they already gave you, and you'll be --

Gus: 112! I'll be older than some countries.

George: The birthday candles alone will bankrupt your kids.

Gus (wiping tears of mirth from his eyes): You hear what happened to Ted Johnson?

George: What?

Gus: He called the death panel, and the office put him on hold. Now, you know how stubborn Ted is. He wouldn't hang up. So he stayed on hold for three weeks.

George (slapping his knee): That's just like the old mule.

Gus (shaking with glee): When he finally got through, they told him he was supposed to be dead a week and a half earlier. Ted laughed so hard, it dropped his blood pressure 40 points, unfroze his knee and cleaned out a coronary artery. I saw him dancing the other day.

SO TO SPEAK
Death panel would put 'the end' out of reach
By JOE BLUNDO

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 12:54 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 03:18 PM

LOL here too.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 03:37 PM

I'm watching two news reporters talking about how to deal with the health insurance companies to "battle" for coverage of tests, etc., that the insurance companies don't want to pay for. They are using words like telling "white lies" getting your doctor to "fight" for you. THIS IS INSANE that people have to do it, and yet they are talking as if... wow, what great "secrets" these are, never pointing out that it is CRAZY that people whose life is on the line need to battle just to get tests.
This makes me so angry that our country is like this.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 04:46 PM

Just think, if that Boston crowd had made themselves a pot of tea, lit their pipes and chilled out, you would all be English, and you would all have healthcare without needing to be millionaires.

What a mistake-a to make.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 06:06 PM

Here's a powerfully articulated special comment from Bill Moyers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8IeZHZRwC4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstoryonly%2F2009%2F9%2F5%2F777377%2F%2DMoyer
BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Bill Moyers on Health Care | PBS

-snip-

The transcript can be found here.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 06:28 PM

Witty and trughful he is. I've been pondering his final statement as well: A voluntary early buy-in to Medicare.

Some tricks to that, probably some we don't see - but it certainly clarifies the public option discussion.

The thing is, though - if we allow private insurers to just throw the high-expense population into medicare by "choice," then they win again, and taxpayers continue to pay and then pay again.

But if we do most of the main private insurance proposed rules - no denials on pre-existing, etc., we ought to be able to make the "option" fair and funded and competitive.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 06:28 PM

"thoughtful" would be a better way to spell that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 10:13 AM

David Axelrod just said on Meet the Press that Obama believes a public option would be a good tool. But Axelrod says "it shouldn't define the whole health care debate."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 10:49 AM

To me, that means, don't let the right wing define "public option" as something evil and then make the debate all about how evil it is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 11:17 AM

Axelrod agrees: He just sent an e-mail press release saying he should not have been misinterpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 11:36 AM

heric-
Medicare already has the high-expense portion of the population. Opening up would actually make it more cost-effective for its members.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 11:59 AM

Yes but it can be skewed by who is allowed in and who goes in. And they could (possibly) be an entirely different Medicare sub-set with a different benefits package.

And I mean relative to the remaining non-Medicare population.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 08:28 PM

Not if they let everybody in. Y'know, it all really comes down to whether or not we wish to consider adequate, affordable health care as a right (for all) or a privilege (for some).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 10:36 PM

If they let illegal aliens in, every sick person in the western hemisphere will find his/her way to America.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 10:58 PM

Bullshit slinger

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 01:35 AM

Five Myths About Health Care around the World

is a must read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 08:58 AM

Of course, the article doesn't talk about the larger problem, and none of the countries cited in the text share a common border with Mexico, nor do they have "birthright citizenship."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 09:36 AM

Of course, nothing in any of the health plans currently being discussed in Congress would give any care at all to undocumented aliens.   In all of them, citizenship is conferred on birth.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 09:53 AM

Here's the problem, art: Congressman Heller tried to put a provision in the House Plan, in committee, that would guarantee that no illegal aliens could receive benefits under the plan, but the committee voted that down. Anything they did after that is just simply window dressing. They want to leave the option to add illegal aliens later--because they think that will gain them the Hispanic vote--otherwise, they would have included the Heller Amendment.
             In addition to that, they are refusing to include the
e-verify system in the bills that would assure health care providers and pharmacies that the person seeking benefits really is an American citizen, again for political reasons.
             Finally, citizenship being confirmed at birth is under fire all over the country, and hopefully it will soon be changed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 10:59 AM

Well, I'm not sure what the Heller Amendment actually says, but the House Bill, as sort-of agreed upon by the three committees working on it, specifically forbids "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" from receiving benefits.

Citizenship is not "confirmed at birth". Citizenship upon birth is granted by Article XIV, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Good luck getting a constitutional amendment to change that.

E-verify relies on the validity of records of the Social Security system. Those records are screwed up beyond belief. For example, consider Mary Smith, who has a SSN under that name and who marries John Jones. If she doesn't notify immediately SSA, or if SSA doesn't, for whatever reason, update her records, e-verify will reject her if she is screened under the name Mary Jones. E-verify also will not detect if someone else is using Mary's name and SSN. No, if it is necessary for anyone (or everyone) to be positively identified, the US needs to start issuing national, unforgeable, ID cards - perhaps with both fingerprints and retina scans on them. We need to stop confusing a record of having taken a driving examination with an identification card. I've carried a government (military) ID card since I was 12...can't see that it has harmed me any.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

I just wrote another email to my democratic senator, Max Baucus. Today I told him I'll NEVER vote for him again. What did he think, that caving in on the public option would make republicans start voting for him?
It disgusts me. He's all about the health industry money he gets for campaigns. Baucus proposed bill skips public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 02:21 PM

"We need to stop confusing a record of having taken a driving examination with an identification card."

            Well, Art, I would agree with that. We need better methods of keeping records of almost every kind in the country today.



    "What did he (Max Baucus" think, that caving in on the public option would make republicans start voting for him?"

    They need to come up with something that will pass. Right now conservative Democrats won't vote for the Hous bill, so they have to make allowances somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 02:49 PM

People for real health reform have already made allowances. They want single payer, but most will accept a public option instead. The base of the Democratic party won't accept a bill without a public option, so the right wing of the Democratic party is just going to have to suck it up and vote for the public option if they want to get re-elected in 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 03:10 PM

The republicans will keep up the lie and hate campaign and there is no reason to expect them to be reasonable and honest about health care legislation. They had no intention of being "bi-partisan" and the dems like Baucus were just being played.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 03:18 PM

From today on To The Point, KCRW radio, republicans pledge to keep up the "nightmare" in attacking health care reform as they have done during the August break.
headline "Congress Returns to Work and Healthcare Reform" CLICK HERE

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 04:23 PM

Oh you big crybabies. I want:

First: Medicaid revamped to ensure routine chronic and wellness and preventive care properly delivered to the poor, and especially their children. - Ain't gonna get it.

Second: Dismantling of the employer tax breaks and the entire employment-linked system of funding private health plans - Ain't gonna get it.

Third: A public option to back stop the employment based insurance victims, with government pursuing the benefits claims against the insurers. Ain't gonna get it.

Fourth: Mandatory participation in catastrophic coverage. Might get it.

Fifth: Statewide community rated private insurance on a level playing field. Ain't gonna get it.

Sixth: Subsidized mandatory participation in private insurance on a sloped playing field. Might get it.

Seventh: Complete portability from job to job without cancellations or non-renewals for serious or chronic illnesses. Will probably get that.

And eighth while I am at it: If the employers are going to get huge tax breaks on overpriced plans, make THEM pay the damned COBRA. I see in Alice's link the "Baucus plan" will let you lose coverage if you get really sick and out of work and can't make your premiums. . .

Obama will tell us what we're getting on Wednesday. (Don't be manipulated. Fear not the cuckoos.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 04:28 PM

In other words, no health care reform whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 04:33 PM

I told you to support Wyden-Bennet . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 04:47 PM

I don't see how my actions with regard to Wyden Bennett have effected it one way or another. I also don't see why one would think that Wyden Bennet would have more of a chance of succeeding than the HR 3200. I have not actually registered any opinion of Wyden Bennett myself, but I don't really see any kind of broad support among the Democratic base for that bill. I do see a broad support for the HR 3200.

My first choice is probably single payer, but I am interested in a bill that will have a lot of support among the base that at least breaks some of the stranglehold the insurance industry has on the delivery of health care and that has a chance of passing. Wyden-Bennett does not seem to be that bill.

Personally, I don't see the chances of a public option passing being as bleak as described above.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 04:59 PM

I think a broad support for the HR 3200 can only be from people seeing what they want to see - Imagine it and pretend it's in there.

No - Wyden-Bennett didn't have broad based support because it was never floated or explained. It just sat there on a shelf. It never had a chance because the most powerful lobbyists would never tolerate it.

I don't think the "public option" is dead, either. Just depends, again, on what one thinks qualifies for that moniker.

We shall see soon enough.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 05:15 PM

HR 3200 said every employer should provide a standard plan or pay 8% of payroll to the government to fund the public option and enroll said employee. When Sebelius said the public option was non-essential - eveyone should have wondered about that 8% payment to see that the entire "plan" was just an illusion. *poof*

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 05:37 PM

...from Huff 'n' Puff Goes Postal:

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius played down her controversial comments on health care reform in a speech Tuesday.

The former Kansas governor created consternation Sunday by saying on Sunday that a public option was 'not essential' to the legislation. But she brushed off the concerned reaction from many Democrats, saying the administration's outlook hasn't shifted at all.

'All I can tell you is that Sunday must have been a very slow news day, because here's the bottom line: absolutely nothing has changed,' she said. 'We continue to support the public option that will help lower costs, give American consumers more choice and keep private insurers honest.'"

[her statement was probably a "trial baloon"]

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 05:50 PM

There are at least three versions of HR 3200 out there. There has been discussion tending toward consensus but there isn't a final House bill yet. There are at least two different committees in the Senate working on legislation.   The president clearly has his own ideas, and the Republicans are pretty much against everything.   Business as usual in Washington.

I spoke to one of my daughters earlier this afternoon and she remarked on how much better the government-managed health insurance plan (my plan, that would be) she was on in college was compared to her current employer's plan, both in cost and coverage.   Of course, everyone knows that anything the government runs must cost more and be less efficient, right?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 06:01 PM

Again, I point out that the first thing that has to settled--regardless of what comes next--is whether or not we want universal affordable health care. The arguments about those hordes of illegal immigrants aren't really relevant to this point (though they well may be if the point is accepted and it becomes a matter of implementation). And, I'd like to point out, that the uninsured, including the undocumented, can currently use emergency room services---one of the most expensive, least effective approaches to health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 06:12 PM

This week "public option" under HR 3200 seems to mean a government run plan taking in all applicants in those states where "affordable insurance," to be defined according to income, can't be found, and where those applicants don't qualify for Medicaid assistance.

Only Obama knows for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 07:08 PM

Since the House has not reconvened, " 'public option' under HR 3200" means exactly what it meant when it recessed August 4th. Any change is only in the minds of various talking heads.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 11:28 PM

If Obama gives/gets us nationwide mandatory participation, no pre-existing denials, and no more cancellations or nonrenewals for health status, that's a big leap forward. A B+ or A- with or without the magic words "Public Option."

With "mandatory participation" a lot of problems will have to work themselves out.

Tomorrow it is - Never has insurance been so exciting!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 11:59 PM

That's a big improvement, but it doesn't address the problem of rising and/or unaffordable premiums and co-pays, and high deductibles, and the rising cost of health care in this country generally.

One of the ways insurance companies prevent people with pre-existing conditions from getting adequate coverage is to jack up the cost of buying insurance so high that such people won't be able to afford it.

The public option at least helps to address these things.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:07 AM

If participation is mandatory and unaffordable - that's what I mean it will have to work itself out. He'll talk about that for sure. Maybe with a public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:44 PM

"Boehner: GOP leaders haven't met Obama for health talks since April

By Molly K. Hooper - 09/09/09 11:09 AM ET


The ball is in President Obama's court to reach out to Republicans if he wants a bipartisan bill on healthcare reform, House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) said Monday morning.

Boehner told reporters that the president has not invited House GOP leaders to the White House for meetings on healthcare reform since the end of April.

Earlier this year, GOP leaders sent a letter to the president in May stating that they would like to work with the administration to find "common ground" on healthcare reform.

But the administration responded with a tersely worded letter indicating that they had healthcare reform under control.
"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:49 PM

BB-
Oddly enough, I can't seem to find any proposals emanating from the GOP---just attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:51 PM

It would be hard to negotiate seriously with a guy named Boehner.

And even if it wasn't, did the guy not notice the seven(?) Congressional committees working on it, five of which approved stuff? Who's he kidding?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 06:30 PM

Isn't Boehner one of the people who said they wouldn't even vote for a bill that contained the co-op option? That's not bipartisan. What they want is for the Democrats to meet them all the way over on their side. Screw them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:21 PM

I'm a substitute teacher who pays $405.OO a month for health insurance through the Cobra p[an, an option that will end for me next month. After that, I'll join the millions of other people in the United States that have no insurance, and are likely unable to find private health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

I'm not sure how soon or how well the health care reform plan that President Obama articulated tonight will help me and help others who have far worse health care conditions than me. I'm hoping for the best.

But one thing that I do know-President Obama is one of the best irators the United States and the world, has ever seen. And the end of his epeech was outstanding.

I can see students in elementary, middle, and high school reciting the end of that speech with President Obama's inflections for years, and decades to come.

While I wait for health care experts to evaluate the plan itself, I'don't hesitate to give that speech an A+ for its oratory.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:32 PM

I liked what he had to say. His speech worked for me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:37 PM

I also saw the speech and was very impressed. He may have revived the chances for reform. I think he overpromised the savings that can be found in "waste, fraud, and abuse" but particularly the illustration of how inter-party co-operation can work, citing McCain, Hatch etc as partners of Ted Kennedy, was very effective. I was also glad he called the "death panel" idea by its name:   a lie. Interesting to see what dear Sarah's reaction will be.

He also defended the "public option" very effectively--but I believe is still open to the "co-op" idea as a way-station. This is good for several reasons, especially since the "public option" has been pilloried by so many crackpots, who are followed by their sheep, that "public option" is now a red flag to huge numbers of people--who don't think, but do vote. But through the co-op approach, which doesn't have the visceral reaction of "public option", the public option will still be reached---which is in fact a main fear of some of the opponents--like the WSJ editorial page.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:57 PM

I heard him say that all insurers would be prohibited from denying care or dropping coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, and that they would not be allowed to drop anyone for a chronic or expensive condition. I did not hear him say (but maybe it's in "his plan") that insurers must accept all comers, even with pre-existing conditions or chronic illness. If the people the insurers don't sign up go to the exchange, and the exhange is supposed to be self-sustaining with its own premiums (he did say that I think), their premiums will be huge, will they not?

He made a couple of references to "his plan." Did he release a plan today, or is he about to?

I was delighted and inspired for the first half of his speech, so glad to see him again, but I find his math impenetrable.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:18 PM

I agree, Heric. #1 mystery is how this reform will pay for itself. I think that unlikely, and a mistake to say it can.

If anybody knows of a government-run health plan, anywhere in the world, which pays for itself with no taxpayer funds, and no funds from elsewhere in the government, let's hear about it.

As I recall, in the UK when I was there visiting, a suggestion to lower the gas (petrol) tax was met with the objection that if you lower the gas tax, hospitals will have to close.

Perhaps UK Mudcatters can confirm or deny this.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:24 PM

He said that people who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions would be provided with care right away, and he said that that was McCain's idea. I particularly like that part, since that would enable me and Jts to get health care coverage long before the rest of it would kick in three years after the law was signed. I'm not sure what sort of plan they would be provided with, though. Maybe I need to listen to the speech again.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:28 PM

From my reading, lots of Republicans agree people should not be excluded on the basis of pre-existing conditions.   That will be in any plan passed by Congress, regardless of the fate of the "public option".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:28 PM

Here's an interesting thing, Don. The Canadian government spends 30% less per capita on our single-payer universal national health care plan than the US government spends at present on American health care. I'm talking about per capita tax dollars spent on health care.

You're paying a lot more in the USA, and getting a lot less for it. Someone needs to look into why that is happening and make the majority of the American public aware of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:31 PM

Ah, but LH, does the Canadian plan pay for itself with no taxpayer funds? That appeared to be President Obama's promise tonight for his plan.   And a rash one, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:35 PM

Yeah they did LH and it resulted in Wyden-Bennett - remedy: almost everybody pays for almost everybody and cut out the tangled web. But Obama said tonight that's right-wing, so fuggedabootit eh?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:43 PM

We still need the public option if we're not going to regulate the hell out of the insurance industry (and those are the only ways to make the insurance companies behave in good faith). Either one of these is fine by me, though.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:45 PM

This has already been brought up, but I think deserves repeating. Crux of the problem is that lots of people have been panicked into believing that in a single-payer situation, quality of their personal care will go down--and they will have no other option.   UK illustrates this is not so.   Besides NHS, there is private care. Sometimes by the same MD's. So even in a single-payer system, people can, and do, get care outside that system.

But even though many of the more well-to-do in the UK may use private care, they have no objection to supporting the NHS--which ensures care for all.

That's what it comes down to:   the well-to-do in the US have to be willing, as in the UK, to subsidize care for the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:55 PM

I don't think this has ever happened before in a Presidential address to Congress:

Obama heckled by GOP during speech to Congress
(AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The nastiness of August reached from the nation's town halls into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday as President Barack Obama tried to move his health care plan forward.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" after Obama had talked about illegal immigrants.

It wasn't the only interruption during Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress in the House of Representatives. Earlier, Republicans laughed when Obama acknowledged that there are still significant details to be worked out before a health overhaul can be passed.

Wilson's outburst caused Obama to pause briefly before he went on with his speech. Overhead in the visitors' gallery, first Lady Michelle Obama shook her head from side to side.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTWB1M9VPOte4M77spW7Z62NsGyQD9AK4ULO0

-snip-

That congressman brought disgrace to himself and to the Republican party that he represents. He should be censured for breaking the Congressional rules of decorum.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:05 PM

Ah but Azizi even the way Obama paused was cool. It's good we know Wilson's name but he just gave Obama another good moment.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:06 PM

The rich are already subsidizing the care of those who don't have insurance.

I really liked the look Obama gave that Republican asshole who heckled him. I thought it was very effective. I was kind of shocked when I heard that, and it looked to me like people in the room were shocked, too. I've never heard anyone do anything like that while any president was giving a speech to the Senate and House.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:12 PM

Wilson apologizes: 'I let my emotions get the best of me'
Posted: September 9th, 2009 10:23 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — GOP Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina issued a statement Wednesday night apologizing for his outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress:

"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."

-snip-

As a result of Republican Congressman Joe Wilson's breach of decurum, more than $25,000 was raised in 2 hours for the campaign of Rob Miller, the Democrat who is running against Wilson in the 2010 election. In 2008 Miller ran against Wilson in the heavily Republican district of South Carolina, and lost by only 7% of the votes.

Something tells me that Miller will do much better this time around.

More on this story can be found at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/9/779555/-Wilson-Apologizes23k-raised-in-2-hours

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:16 PM

One bit of information that has come out about that heckler was that he called up the White House to apologize directly to President Obama, but ended up speaking to Rahm Emanuel instead.

I'm sure that Congressman Joe Wilson didn't enjoy that conversation one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:24 PM

No, Carol, not to the extent they do in the UK. And in the UK they do not object.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:38 PM

Haha! I am glad the fundraising got a boost for Wilson's opponent.

I thought the speech was brilliant as did my Rog who is much more critical than I.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:41 PM

Yes, but if they understood that they are currently paying for those without insurance, and if they understood that they are paying a lot more for the care that is being given than they would pay if such people had access to good medical care before they become seriously ill, and if they had any business sense at all, they would realize it's in their best interest to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care. Insurance company employees and executives excepted.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:15 AM

I'm convinced Obama's "my plan" must be HR 3200. Guess I'd better start warming up to it. God what a monster. (It does say all (minumum/standard plan) insurers have to accept all comers - section 112. And 113 says they have to continually study the "adverse selection" problem and make "recommendations." 113 also says they have pretty large rating pools, geographically, "as specified by the Commissioner in consultation with state regulators.") I really can't figure out the specifics on who gets to, who wants to, and who must, go to the exchange.

I'm not sure how they limit the public option within the exchange to no more than 5% of the population. Probably that's an estimate not a promise.

I think they are supposed to forever monitor the individual market, the small group market, the large group markets, and the public option, and keep making rule adjustments, especially at the exchange, to ensure "equality" and "affordability" in people's options, while not "unfairly" subsidizing the public option.

Of course I may have it all wrong altogether.

I'm still sorry for the Medicaid people and their kids.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:47 AM

My husband is a councillor and was off at a meeting - so I listened alone then we found it on UTube - it was even better the second time around.....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:29 AM

For those who can't handle talking heads, no matter who they might be, here is the text of the President's remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:43 AM

Here are links to YouTube videos of the speech:

President Obama Health Care Speech - part 1

and

President Obama Health Care Speech - part 2

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:53 AM

Here are the other links to that 50 minute speech:

President Obama Health Care Speech - part 3

President Obama Health Care Speech - part 5

and

President Obama Health Care Speech - part 6


**

I'm not sure what happened to part 4 or if the poster of these videos misnumbered them. Perhaps I mishyperlinked (if that is a word). If so, my apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 08:05 AM

Also, here's an update to this diary Eyes on the Ball: Health Coverage Reform, Not Wilson about the now infamous South Carolina Republican congressman 'Joe' Wilson (it turns out his real name is "Addison"):

"As of 11:15 p.m. PDT, ActBlue has tallied $72,178 for Rob Miller, Wilson's foe in the next election"...

-snip-

And I'm sure more has been raised since then.

**

Here's an excerpt from a column in the Washington Post about the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot (please excuse that pun)during President Obama's speech:

"Republicans' Audio-Visual Problem: It's always a mistake to assume that the only thing viewers take from a nationally televised speech is the words the president is using. If so, the White House could simply release the remarks and be done with it. Visuals (and audio) matter. And, the two most compelling pieces of audio-visual that came out of tonight's speech -- House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) checking his blackberry and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouting "you lie" at Obama -- don't work in Republicans' favor. Remember that while the American public is not sold on Obama's health care plan, overwhelming majorities say they favor the two sides working together to solve the nation's problems. The more Republicans look like they are opposing the Democratic plan for partisan reasons, the more danger they are in politically."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 08:44 AM

Financing NHS

Source:   Finance Director, University Hospitals, Coventry and Warwickshire, NHS Trust

29%    Income Tax
16%    National Insurance

Obviously there are other items on this list

But the second item is the crucial one.   Jan says the way it works is that the National Insurance deduction is taken out of all wages, according to income.




Something similar will have to happen in the US in order for a single-payer system to be financed here.

And with the US worship of the individual, ably led by cheerleaders such as ex-gov Palin, and the editorial page of the WSJ---but to the detriment of the community--it's not likely to happen soon.   Opposition to such a change is hammered away at constantly, with the theme being:   private charity is fine, but public charity is not. Excuses include:   alleged incompetence of government to do anything well or efficiently, stifling of private initiative
"The more of your money you keep, not sending it to government, the better for the economy at large" and others.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 08:52 AM

Remember, for the umpity-zillionth time, single-payer is not on the table in the US and is really never likely to be.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 09:54 AM

This fine speech won't stop Republican hard-liners from opposing universal health care, but it might undermine their attempts to get re-elected in 2010.

I wonder what part of "lie" Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) doesn't understand.He did have the grace to apologize to Obama for "being uncivil" but he still evidently believes that there's a plan somewhere to extend publicly funded medical care to "illegal aliens."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:07 AM

I was wondering that too Charley. I just went to his website "health care" page, and the site is down due to high traffic. Maybe he can have a new career going on the talk circuits with Sarah Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:16 AM

'"I wonder what part of "lie" Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) doesn't understand... he still evidently believes that there's a plan somewhere to extend publicly funded medical care to "illegal aliens."'

             That's because the Democrats keep verbalizing their opposition to covering illegals, but every time a proposal is made in ensure that it can't happen, they veto it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:03 AM

Joe Wilson's behavior shouldn't surprise anyone- his political mentor was Strom Thurmond. For those too young to remember the rantings of Thurmond the archetypal white supremacist & segregationist, 'google' his political career.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:04 AM

Banning illegal immigrants is in HR 3200.   Some people would rather believe talk show hosts and other reliable sources than read the proposed legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:18 AM

Okay, Art - They can easily change their minds after the legislation is passed, or they can legalize a bunch of folks who are illegal now and cover them that way. All the opponents are asking for is some form of verification that the people being covered are legal, and that people who broke the law to get here in the first place are not covered.

            If they would do that, and provide some meaningful form of tort reform, they'd have all kinds of support.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:25 AM

They can easily change their minds after the legislation is passed, or they can legalize a bunch of folks...

Yeah, gee whiz, that's a real problem with a democracy. Ya can always draft & enact new legislation that impacts or negates earlier legislation.

Maybe we need a dictatorship.

PS: who are "they" anhyhow???

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:29 AM

I thought I must be thick as a brick because I couldn't understand how "not one dime . . . not one dime" (read my lips) would come out of Medicare while at the same 500 or 600 billion from Medicare would be available to pay for the new proposals. Neither could I grasp how any money from a speeding locomotive heading for an actuarial train wreck could be the source of money.

For an appetizer, see how $30 billion comes from premiums and benefits changes under the outpatient prescription drug benefit under Part D of Medicare: CGO 8/28/09

For the entree, see CBO 7/17/09

For desert, you will want to ingest CBO 7/25/09

If you get the impression that HR 3200 is primarily directed at the Medicare crisis with "health insurance exchanges" as a sideshow of extraordinary complexity, you may be right. See CBO 6/16/09

I watched the White House Communications' Director's streaming Q&A after the speech. They chose and answered questions like: "Will I lose maternity leave?" A: "No, you won't lose maternity leave!"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:50 AM

I suppose the Federal Government could save a lot of money by eliminating Social Security and Medicare, not to mention Public Education. Shit, all the Government needs really is money to buy weapons.

I can hardly wait until Health Care Reform is enacted and we can shift focus to something else that needs to be done.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:03 PM

"From: Azizi
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:55 PM

I don't think this has ever happened before in a Presidential address to Congress:"

Oh??? Look here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM

My opinion from the portions I can understand is that HR 3200 is too complicated by a factor of several hundred billion. It is a major reconstruction of the labyrinth. It leaves the powerful interests with what works for them, while imposing mandates they can tolerate.

It reduces a lot of cost shifting by protecting the working insured and covering the working uninsured. and mandating participation.

It pretends to shift Medicare funding to the larger population. It is focused on continuing federal discretion to impose benefits reductions in Medicare, claiming that reductions in benefits and services will not result in the reduction of available *quality* based on continual outcomes-based research with resulting care management guidelines constantly adjusted.

It leaves the tax benefits to corporations providing health care, the employee benefits industry protected, and the divisions between employer provided insurance and other insurance, while promising to constantly adjust premiums and monitoring adverse selection to minimize unfair results.

It may or may not end up with a public option within the health insurance exchange, constantly monitored to provide care with subsidies monitored to ensure they are not "unfair" subsidies.

Mr. Obama, tear down that labyrinth!

You can still reform Medicare within a Medicare bill.

(What struck me most in the speech is that the $900 billion is less than all of the Bush tax cuts' impact over the next ten years. That really provides perspective.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: SINSULL
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:16 PM

I can't help but wonder if the "You lie!" shout would have happened if Obama were white.
Respect the office if not the man. What a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:33 PM

Well, Sinsull, I suspect Joe Wilson really thought he was lying--I did too. But he should have kept his mouth shut.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:42 PM

Joe Wilson doesn't think much at all. Check his record.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:47 PM

He said not one dime would come out of the medicare trust fund. It sounds to me like there's a distinction between the medicare trust fund, and whatever money he said would help pay for his plan.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: SINSULL
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:50 PM

Bush told one bald-faced lie after another as did Clinton but no one ever shouted "You Lie" from the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:53 PM

Ah, Jeeze! There ya go, Carol, polluting the discussion with logic & factual information. Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:12 PM

Well he did say there is a lot of waste spending etc. in Medicare and Medicaid and that is where the money would come from; NOT get rid of them or take away benefits, just tighten up the ship, so to speak.

Booing Bush, en masse, is a bit different from one voice yelling out "you lie" and, also has historical precedent, I dare say.

I kept getting a visual in my head of the scales of justice...weighed down the most with the amount he said we've spent on Iraq and Afghanistan with the lighter side being what he says health care reform will cost. THEN, I reversed the image..better perspective and something I believe can happen.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:18 PM

I just heard that part of the speech again (the heckling part). Other people on the Republican side are booing and shouting as well (just before the shout that people are criticizing), but nobody is criticizing that booing and shouting. I think everyone sees a big difference between what the rest of the Republicans were doing and what Wilson did. I notice that Wilson also shouted "you lie" while the rest of the Republicans were booing, but that shout got drowned out. I'm guessing he shouted it a second time expecting the others to be booing at the same time and he just got left high and dry. LOL

He's still an asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:21 PM

beardedbruce, note that I wrote "I don't think this has ever happened before in a Presidential address to Congress".

But as for the example you gave, I co-sign what katlaughing wrote in her 10 Sep 09 - 01:12 post to this thread: "Booing Bush, en masse, is a bit different from one voice yelling out "you lie" and, also has historical precedent, I dare say".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:27 PM

" in a Presidential address to Congress"

State of the Union address IS a Presidential address to Congress.


Unlike the Dems in 2005, there was an apology, this time.


Sins:

"I can't help but wonder if the "You lie!" shout would have happened if Obama were white.
Respect the office if not the man. What a disgrace"


So, what do you think about the DEMS in 2005, with a white President? Is THAT ok?????

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:27 PM

I also co-sign what CarolC wrote.

You tell'em Carol!

:o)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:28 PM

Having looked at both videos, I have to say the murmur of disagreement that met Bush's exagerrated claims about SS were considerably more civil than the general blather of naysayers hollering at Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:31 PM

I didn't see any apology from all of the other Republicans who were booing and shouting during Obama's speech last night. Nor did anyone ask for one. And I would suggest that's because everyone sees a big difference between the kind of collective booing and shouting that the Democrats did in 2005 and the Republicans did last night, and someone shouting out "you lie" to the president while he is giving a speech to the Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 02:01 PM

Check out this dailykos diary:

Probable beltway evolution of Wilson's "You Lie"

by wilbur
Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:20:48 AM PDT

**

It had me goin there for a minute.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 02:09 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM

THa tis a crackup, isn't it? Of course, in real life, such neurotic leaps of associative thought only occur in the asylums. Don't they?

Well?   Don't they?

...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 02:56 PM

We are in an asylum.

Well, aren't we?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:32 PM

In any event, Joe Wilson probably re-assured his re-election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:52 PM

Rig-

Yes, but re-election to where?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:56 PM

if I were a betting person, I'd bet you that Joe Wilson will be gone from Congress in 2010.

Something tells me that lots of folks will be working toward that end. According to this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_heckling "The reaction to Wilson's outburst, nevertheless, was punishing — even without the specter of official House action.

His Web site crashed, he took a beating on Twitter as Republicans and Democrats alike condemned his behavior...

[And] ..."the uproar turned into a boon for Democrat Rob Miller, his opponent in next year's midterm elections.

In the first 24 hours after Wilson's outburst, Miller's campaign coffers swelled by $200,000, according to Jessica Santillo of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The contribution, she said, came in from 5,000 individual contributions."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:57 PM

"Yes, but re-election to where?"

          Congress! People in South Carolina are tired of supporting illegal aliens.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: curmudgeon
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:24 PM

"Joe Wilson probably re-assured his re-election."

Since he shot his mouth off, his Congressional opponent has taken in over $400,000 in campaign contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:26 PM

The health care legislation currently before Congress bans payments to illegal aliens.   Perhaps Rep. Wilson needs someone who can read to assist him.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:54 PM

People in South Carolina have more problems with space aliens.

And the rest of the country is probably tired of supporting South Carolina.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:02 PM

Are you sure he didn't call out "I'm a liar"?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:10 PM

This is becoming a pattern, innit? Joe, the Wilson, will go down in history.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:23 PM

Different take on Joe Wilson's ill-timed remark:

After a month a very bad behavior on the Repubs part (that they weren't called for down for) I think that the reaction to Rep. Wilson's behavior says more about how the country has had just about enough of Republican uncivility...

Wilson did more to push health care reform along than anyone knows...

That's the way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:26 PM

Azizi, your Cobra costs must be for just yourself. When my wife swiched jobs it took 2 months before her new benifits would kick in. For herself, her spouse (me) & for the 2 kids it was $1250.00 per month & the coverage sucked. No eye or dental that was all extra, co-pays went up & some meds that were tier 1 went to tier 2 & the tier 2's some went to tier 3's.
You were lucky to get away with that but still that's way to much & COBRA is there only as a temporary safety net??? Some safety net, it costs the most when you can least afford it or when you can't afford it & need it the most & it's temporary to boot, after it expires really you're fucked!

That wasn't a twitch. I see twitches all the time, my son's got Touretts & so didn't his grandfather. That weren't nothin' more than an ol shoo fly named Joe Wilson buzzing the echoes of the ghost of Strom Thurmond in the empthy hollows of his head. The talk show spinners can speak it & spin it in circles but Obama gave it the attention it so richly deserved & not recieving his call was completely apporpriate on Obama's part.

I believe, after being on medicare & an employer sponsered plan for a good few yrs that there's so much waste that it's unbelievable it's astronormical. The papers & forms I get is doubled & tripled, it's always, "your claim cannot be processed at this time please conntact your provider" who I then have to contact & explain what everything was for (this is explained in the billing process) I then have to get back to the provider of the care who's trying to get paid & have them contact the insurer, then they have to rebill after I sent back in a new form saying that my doctor authorized the treatment after I already had a pre-outhorizion sent from my Doc. Unbelievable, always a fight for coverage & nearly a full time job to stay healthy dispite them trying to kill me.
Saving the system would not only IMHO pay for the new reform it would also save on the enviorment, less trees, less human energy, less air pollution (tons of trucking mail & the postage)less useless jobs that produce carbon die.

"Not a dime from medicare", medicare & medicade would also prosper under the new bill, again the savings alone in waste cutting would be tremendous, steaming lining & trimming it, oh how I could go on.

I would love to see the reform take away the employers playing/paying a part in this but that doesn't seem to be, so be it.
As it stands, the unions are getting dumped on with the responsibility for heath care by the manufacturers & corporations. Someone has to carry the burden (why is it the unions who are always the ones to fight the losing battles?). They (manuf, & corps) know what a nightmare & burden it is & they'd rather shift that burder over to the unions whereas if the government took it on as they do in all other democratic & advanced nations it wouldn't be such a nightmare & it would be a fare share for everyone. (and the auto & steel industries might once again have a fighting chance to survive).

To listen to Obama talk was first & foremost a sweet pleasure after the years of double-talking confusion, words that couldn't be found in any dictionary, redundant remarks. His speech was plain & clear, the man's very articulate, doesn't mince words, makes his ideas known. I'm proud when he speaks to thenot just the nation but to the world. The world listens to him & they're not laughting this time, they're respecting what the man has to offer, weither or not they agree. That's not happened in quite a while.

I loved his speach again for his attempts to bring this reform in under a whole, united congress. He reaches across without begruging or trying to humble, he makes it clear who's job it is & who he's relying on to get the jpob done & he let us the people know here he stands & who standing with him & who's fucked it up without putting the knife in & twisting it it. He's very much "a matter of fact" man & he wiling to put the facts out there & show them for what they are,,,as well as the lies "Joe".

Did anyone catch Michelle reaching over & holding the hand of Teddy's teary eyed widow in support, while Vicky was choking back her tears? Cause this is the unfinished work of his (Teddy's) life long dream, the same health care that congress has, available to every John Q Public that lives in America. That says more for how the first family works in the human community.

I love this man!!! IMHO we have never had better and the sooner his opposition realizes it & lets him get on with "our business" the better, either that or let them get out f the way so he can do his job.

We now stand a etter chance than a snowball in hell or getting back what's been lost over the past 30 odd years. Obama is our chance to regain world respect, he's our ticket to much needed health care reform, educational reform (hopefully his next "big", actually ongoing issue), he's already proved his mettle in handling of the financial mess we're in (I've been looking at the public & government bids lately for the New England area on construction projects & the amount of road, bridges, schools, bases-anything that get public, state or federal money is astonishing in the jobs & money it's generating). We are far better off at the moment than we could have possibility have ever hoped for had someone else, anyone else, been in office right now. And we could even be further down the road if the "Begruding Right" would stop with the constant, needless roadblocks.

He does need to end the wars, that's my only gripe, well that & he needs to be a bit more of an extreme left wing radical, well more than a bit but if he were imagine the roadblocks then, he get nothing done.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:31 PM

"Perhaps Rep. Wilson needs someone who can read to assist him."

    artbrooks needs help learning to read between the lines!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:44 PM

Art,
The point being made is that the Dems have NOT permitted any amendments that allow for the requirement that the status ( legal or illegal0 be determined when someone signs up. With no way to ask whether someone is legal, there is no reason to think illegals will NOT sign up for it.

I wonder why there have been no comments about Obama stating that "NOT ONE dollar of Federal money will be used for abortions"? If everyone HAS to be covered, and no Federal dollars are to be used for abortions, doesn't this mean that abortions will be limited to those who are rich enough to avoid the government plan(s)?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:19 PM

And they're the only ones with enough money left after paying for the program to afford the children.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:38 PM

BB, there really is no way to make such a determination, so why add an unenforceable amendment? The bill simply forbids illegal aliens from accessing the program, as do many other bits of Federal law. The only enforcement mechanism is to kick somebody off it if they are subsequently found to be ineligible. Using an I-9 form and processing it, using E-verify, or any other method depending on Social Security numbers is a complete farce.   Anybody with a color printer can produce a Social Security card. Anybody with a stolen SSA card will get a positive result from e-verify.

Consider how much additional opposition this bill would have if it included provisions for a real way to determine identification - not that such a thing has any place in a health-care bill. However - IMHO - we need a National Identification Card as long as there are going to be benefits that derive from citizenship or other legal status.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:48 PM

The idea that has been floated about abortions is that women could elect to *purchase* that option and that the premiums go into a pool to cover such procedures...

As for illegals getting benefits??? Yeah, there is so much fraud in our current systems that some folks are able to milk the system for awhile... I mean, even doctors are getting caught gaming the system... Not reforming a broken system because someone might scam it is some seriously flawed thinking... The plans that have been proposed do *not* provide benefits for illegals... That is a fact... Not a lie, as Congressman Wilson shouted out last night... Can the language be tightened up to prevent illegals from gaming the system??? Probably... Does this excuse Congressman Wilson's behavior??? No, it doesn't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 07:53 PM

"...a National Identification Card "

HA! You think the right-wing-nuts are pissing & moaning NOW? Try to tell 'em they have to carry an ID card to get govt. help.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 08:05 PM

Yeah, Bill... I can hear the moanin' 'n peein' if the Dems go for some kinda National ID system... Now if it was the Repubs idea then all would be fine but if a Dem suggested it it would be Hitler this, Hitler that... Ya' know what, the Repubs are slowly but very surely marginializing themselves... And seem very proud to be doing it???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 08:08 PM

"The bill simply forbids illegal aliens from accessing the program, as do many other bits of Federal law. "


And this does what with ILLEGAL aliens??? Isn't there presence here forbidden by Federal law?


So the comment that illegal aliens will not be covered has what meaning????????

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 08:33 PM

About as much meaning as saying that illegal aliens can't pay taxes, can't pay into Social Security, can't spend money, can't get a driver's license or a bank account. If there is no way to enforce a rule - and there isn't - it means nothing. So why are you asking dumb questions that you already know the answer to? Is that a valid reason to continue to deny millions of people - citizens - medical care? Because a few illegals might slip in as well? Sorry, but I can't buy that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 08:53 PM

Well - as my husband said as we watched th recording - isn't it wonderful to have the grownups back in charge. Barry - amen to every word you said.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 09:19 PM

Art,

When the Reps. on the committee tried to put in an amendment saying that citizenship ( or legal residency) be verified, it was voted down by the Dems. Why wopuld that be??

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 09:31 PM

Perhaps because they realized that the requirement was already there, and there was no point in putting it in twice? The requirement to verify eligibility is in the proposed law - HR 3200 says, in Sec. 241(b)(1), pg 130, that "the Commissioner shall establish a process whereby, on the basis of information otherwise available, individuals may be deemed to be affordable credit eligible individuals." Or maybe they simply realized that complete and accurate verification is impossible, and I wish the Commissioner luck.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 09:42 PM

It's the enforcement mechanizms that the Democrats keep voting down, Art. It the percentage of illegal aliens continues to increase at the rate it has since 1986, by 2032 you'll have 140 million of them. Try paying for that!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amergin
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:07 PM

Why don't we just euthanise people who get sick and can't pay for their treatment? It's what we do for pets....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Peace
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:13 PM

"I wish the Commissioner luck."


I wish the American people luck.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:24 PM

Right wing think tanks, Palin types, radio shock jocks and lobbyists have an uphill road to travel but are managing just fine in third gear.

They have to sell:

SUPPORT HIGHER INSURANCE RATES

STAND UP FOR DENYING HEALTH CARE Insurance TO PEOPLE WITH PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
THis shal include newborns.

DENY HEALTH INSURANCE TO PEOPLE WHO SUBSEQUENTLY GET SICK
this shall include newborns.

KILL COMPETITION IN THE FREE MARKET OF HEALTH INSURANCE-DOWN WITH THE GOVERMENT OPTION.

SAY YES TO THE REPUBLICAN HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
psst there isn't one. They're even against covering children and
you guessed it, newborns.




To get anyone other than very stupid or hateful fundamentalists people to agree is hard.


THE ANSWER IS TO MAKE MORE PEOPLE STUPID.


So... and here comes the punch line in this serious debate...



Help deny education benefits to those with pre existing IGNORANCE.









Don't for a minute believe that the dumbing of America is not and has not been a strategy for 40 years. College educated people are the biggest threat to conservative corporate regiemes.
A WW 2 GI bill bred a whole generation of educated people who were quickly beaten down with the commie scare of Joe McCarthy. Reds pinkos liberals commies Jews, N'ers were put in their place as soon as Republicans got the white house back.

It worked then so they will run that play again, you can rely on it.

The moment WW 2 was over in Britain the fisrt thing the people wanted and got was National HEalth care.

It is taking a bit longer over here because the corporate mentality is more deeply ingrained.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:43 PM

Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Don't get out of step.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:48 PM

Indeed, Donuel.

Barry, yes!! Have you seen the latest email from Kucinich? He and Weiner are both for single payer. I would prefer it, too, but I liked what I heard, for a start, last night.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:06 PM

"A WW 2 GI bill bred a whole generation of educated people who were quickly beaten down with the commie scare of Joe McCarthy. Reds pinkos liberals commies Jews, N'ers were put in their place as soon as Republicans got the white house back.

It worked then so they will run that play again, you can rely on it.

"The moment WW 2 was over in Britain the fisrt thing the people wanted and got was National HEalth care.

"It is taking a bit longer over here because the corporate mentality is more deeply ingrained." Donuel

Good god, Don. It appears to me that your thesis doesn't even get near the water, much less hold it. First you say that the GI bill "bred a whole generation of educated people" then you go on to say how quickly these same educated were "beaten down with the Commie scare, etc.

Question: What is the solution? I gather that education isn't it.
Speaking of presidents and "as soon as Republicans got the white house back." here is a list of the pertinent years:

# Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1933-1945
# Harry S Truman 1945-1953
# Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
# John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1961-1963
# Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1969
# Richard Milhous Nixon 1969-1974
# Gerald Rudolph Ford 1974-1977

I fail to follow your reasoning.

Second Question: What are you implying about Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:26 PM

I am somewhat disappointed with the projected health care system that seems to be emerging. It looks to me like what we need is a horse, and what Obama, et al are coming up with is a six-legged camel with wings and its eyes on stalks. My only hope is that if it passes, it will actually get us where we need to go.

I am for single-payer government run health care system. Simple, straightforward, proven.

But one thing that Obama said in his speech was particularly germane to my situation:

"Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."

I have a scoliosis (spinal curvature) left over from polio when I was two years old. Because of this, I throw my back out easily and frequently. Reach for something and "POP!" The back goes out, and until I do something about it, it's like I have a railroad spike in my back. It can be quite painful and downright debilitating.

I have a chiropractor who makes house calls. Because this is a chonic thing, I need his services about every two weeks, and frequently more often than that. His office is only a few blocks from were I live. He takes a long lunch hour on which he goes jogging, and when I need his services, I call, and he jogs to my place in the early afternoon (with his English bulldog, Trevor), works me over (massage, adjustment), and leaves me all ship-shape—until it happens again.

I called his receptionist this morning to set up another appointment, and she informed me that my insurance company had informed her that I was good for one more adjustment, and that ended my coverage for the rest of the year. I have used up this year's allowance.

So, what does the insurance company expect me to do, take aspirin for the rest of the year? When they cover it, it leaves me with a $15.00 co-pay. I can pay full price, but it really cuts into the budget!

What is that but rationing, pray tell?

And my position is a bit precarious. Since I have had polio, what could the insurance company decide not to cover, invoking polio as a "pre-existing condition?"

####

As to the high price of health service in this country, the insurance companies are not the only culprits. There are two in particular that I can think of offhand.

1.   I'm not sure how many hospitals there are in the Seattle area, but there are several. And a couple of them, like Swedish, are BIG. A couple of campuses. There's University of Washington Medical Center (also big), Virginia Mason Hospital, Northwest Hospital, Pacific Medical Center, and a couple more in the immediate area, not to mention large clinics up the ziggy. Most of them have their own CAT scan and MRI machines. Competition. If one has an MRI scanner, the others have to have one too.

In some areas, and in many countries, such facilities are shared. One MRI in a given area with a number of hospitals. A patient from hospital A who needs a scan is sent to hospital B, who has the scanner. I've been told that there are more MRI scanners in the city of Seattle than there are in the entire country of Canada. And that's not because Canada is short of MRI scanners.

And all those scanners (pricy gadgets!) have to be paid for.

2.   Medical and orthopedic equipment is generally far more expensive than it needs to be. Talking to a technician from Care Medical who was working on my electric wheelchair one afternoon, I asked him why a standard, manual wheelchair is so much more expensive than, say, a decent bicycle, when, if you think about it, there is darn little difference between the component parts? Or why an electric wheelchair is so much more expensive than a golf cart, when there is little difference in technology and components between the two conveyances? Or why a pair of aluminum forearm crutches cost as much as they do?

He said, "It's because the manufacturers figure that they're going to be paid for by an insurance company, and people have to have them. So the manufacturer's jack up the price. By the way," he concluded, "you didn't hear that from me."

Don Firth

P. S. Rig, I, too, am concerned about illegal aliens bankrupting the country if a good national health system passes in the U. S. I live in Seattle, which is not that far from the Canadian border. I see great thundering herds of Mexicans running by my front windows in a constant stream, like migrating caribou, to illegally cross the Canadian border to get to Canada's national health service. I don't know how Canada's economy copes!

It's a worry that keeps me up nights!! Not to mention all those Mariachi bands. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:39 AM

But how are all of Wilson's constituents going to be able to keep their estates looking nice down there in his district if their illegal gardeners get sick and can't afford to see the doctor?


JtS and I were talking with his mother on the phone this evening. She's lived all of her life in Newfoundland, and then Canada after Confederation. We were talking about all of the scare tactics the insurance industry shills use to scare people away from a system like they have in Canada; long waits, rationing of care, and making old people go without care so they can die early and not be a burden on the system.

She said, "That's bullshit! That's complete bullshit! What sort of idiot would believe such a thing!? I've never had to wait! I've received excellent care! I'm seventy years old, and I only pay $100 a year total for all of my medications! Canada has the best health care in the world! Who wouldn't want a system like ours? What idiots Americans are! The people who are saying those things have an agenda or they're crazy, and Americans are stupid for believing them!"

LOL

It was a great rant.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:34 AM

Your grandmother is quite correct, Carol.

Meanwhile, here's the latest announcement from Dennis Kucinich:

Dear Friends,

A National Health Care for All Conference Call from Washington, DC, at 10 pm EDT, today, Thursday, September 10th at 1-800-230-1096.

Join us, so that we can discuss a new beginning for "Health Care For All" and ways in which we can all help. Pre-registration is necessary in order to reserve sufficient phone lines. Please RSVP here. When you call in and the operator asks, "what conference call?" tell the operator, "Health Care for All."

The President's health care policy speech was brilliant but when you get into the details another picture emerges. Unfortunately, at this point, the proposal outlined last night is the ultimate corporate giveaway. It's not health care, it's insurance care. As many as thirty million new customers for an insurance industry which makes money not providing health care. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care. That is the essence of HR676, the single payer bill.

The President opened his speech speaking of how we have solved the economic crisis - how? By rewarding those who caused the crash! Is this the way we solve the health care crisis? Rewarding the insurance companies? Helping insurance and pharmaceutical stock to soar, propping up markets while skimping on health care? The very same system which caused the health care crisis is being rewarded with the guarantee of tens of millions of new customers mandated - by law - to have health care. The latest plan rewards the very companies that have denied treatment, denied care, denied drug coverage while their profits grow daily.

The only way this country will see true sustainable economic recovery is through investment in the real economy, priming the pump through job creation. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care.

The "public option" has been relegated to insignificance. What we will now get is yet another "private option", not a public option, because single-payer is "off the table." We the people deserve better. We have been faced with general warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan - multi-trillion dollar ballouts for arms merchants, $12 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, bailouts to coal and nuclear industries, and now proposed huge subsidies for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. What's wrong with this picture? Everything!

Please join our national conference call tonight at 1-800-230-1096. Contribute to the start up. Join the movement. Sign the online petition. We must organize for the long term success of a state and national single payer movement. I need your help to initiate this action. If you believe, as I do, that we can and must begin a new long-term state-by-state grassroots effort to create a single-payer, not-for-profit health care system, please contribute now at Kucinich.us

Let us act now and initiate a Health Care for All action plan.

A National Health Care for All Conference Call from Washington, DC, at 10 pm EDT, Thursday, September 10th at 1-800-230-1096. Join us, so that we can discuss our new beginning and ways in which we can all help. Pre-registration is necessary in order to reserve sufficient phone lines. Please RSVP here. When you call in and the operator asks, "what conference call?" tell the operator, "Health Care for All."
Health Care Meet-Ups. A resource to organize people around the single payer option.
On-line petition. Please contact your lists, your family and friends. Please sign the petition for a single payer system. I will deliver the petitions directly to your Congressperson.
Petition to download, print and circulate among friends and neighbors - including an instruction sheet.
Tell A Friend. Every email forwarded will make a difference? Please use the "Forward Email" link below to circulate up to 5 emails at a time to your friends.
I need your help to initiate this action. If you believe, as I do, that we can and must begin a new long-term state-by-state grassroots effort to create a single-payer, not-for-profit health care system, please contribute now at Kucinich.us

Thank you.

Dennis Kucinich

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:37 AM

Sorry, Carol, I meant to say Jack's mother at the beginning of that previous post...not your grandmother.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:27 AM

I have been watching the reports coming out of America with my Jaw on the floor.

The idea that the NHS is anything less than superb and a national treasure in the UK is seen as utterly absurd over here.

I've been able to rely on the NHS to send a doctor to my home when my daughter was ill, to operate on me within 24 hours when I had an accident that needed urgent attention, and to treat me for whatever other ailments I've suffered from over the years.

Here we take it for granted.

I'm sick - I go see my GP ... for free.

He prescribes medicine or hospital care and I get seen and given first classs treatment and have my problems sorted.

every few months there is a story in the news about somebody who has an unacceptable experience.

When this happens, it gets in the news because it is in the public interest because it is our health service and it is accountable to us.

And to clarify a key point, I live in south east London in the inner city where the NHS is at its busiest and most sretched.

The doctors and nurses are fantastic and I am grateful that I don't live in a country like America where those with more money than sense believe it is right to let those who can't afford health care die or go bankrupt.

The only lies being told in America right now are the lies being told to the American Public about the NHS and similar systems around the world.

Denying health care to those who can't aford it is nothing short of a crime.

Those who are resisting health care reform are criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:44 AM

It would be interesting to know how malpractice is treated in the UK and Canada. That seems to be a big stumbling block in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:41 AM

Thanks for the insights on the NHS. Michael Moore had nice things to say about the UK system in "Sicko." Its nice to see that confirmed. The statement below needs some clarification. Indeed it did get some in Obama's Wednesday evening speech.

"The only lies being told in America right now are the lies being told to the American Public about the NHS and similar systems around the world."

Obama, attacked three major lies about the proposed health reforms, "death panels would be created", "abortions would be paid for." and "The health care of illegal aliens would be subsidized.

Note that each of the above are specifically tailored lies meant to appeal to the fears and prejudices of major Republican voter blocks.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:51 AM

Good points, Jack. The fact is, they are telling any lie at all which they think some people in America might be ignorant or foolish enough to believe. He who controls the flow of information moulds public opinion. This is true in any country. So all you need to take a country down the road to corruption and madness is a well-controlled and financially manipulated media in the hands of a few very unscrupulous and wealthy men.

What people hear every day on their radio or TV is exactly what most of them end up believing.

That was one of the key points of the book "1984".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:52 AM

Malpractice is a Republican talking point, little else. For one thing, tort law is a state issue. It is interesting that the very people who will scream "states rights" in issues where it is convenient to them, issues like same sex marriage and abortion, want to federalize tort law for doctors. On the other hand North Carolina has one of the strictest set of laws against "frivolous law suits" and such in the USA and since those laws have been enacted, medical costs have not decreased substantially. In fact they have risen at the same rate as those states without such laws.

As Republicans continue to insist on such impractical and ill-informed positions I suggest that they be obliged to wear sandwich boards, and in chronic cases, facial tattoos, saying factually challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:56 AM

Its not quite "1984" here, not yet. At least the President and some others have the means to stand up and say the truth. But Fox News, insane politicians, and the Radio squawkers are, to say the least, undermining the ideal of a well informed electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:13 AM

Yes, and the thing is...people usually listen to whichever media outlet shores up and supports their already existing set of beliefs and prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:37 AM

>tort law is a state issue<

A point I've avoided since Obama would call me right-wing is that all of this concerns state issues but for the employer-based coverage link, which has prevented most states from enacting substantial protections. That's another reason employers, insurers and employee-benefits companies don't want you to mess with it (and Wyden-Bennet kept it all federal and preserved those federal protections.)

It's moot, though, in the modern world.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:52 AM

Heric,

Obama certainly would not call you a "right-wing" for expressing such an opinion.

Also surely all of the "states rights" ground to be broken in the current proposals would have been broken and indeed, without universal single payer, far surpassed already with Medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:59 AM

The Great Game is Greater than you are likely aware. That's why Obama, wisely or unwisely, has chosen not to hit it head-on, and why he knocked the employer-based reform out of the park in his speech by labelling "right-wing," rather than targeting the obvious right wing objectors and insulting them directly. The modern "right wing" (as in psuedo-fascists) are entirely in agreement with that avoidance. Libertarians, if they count as "right-wing," would not be.

Don't get me wrong, I support "the Obama plan" (which I define as the anticpated final iteration of HR 3200.) Not that my Congressman cares what I think. I just had unrealistic expectations growing. A naive audacity of hope spinnng out of control. I had hoped for creativity with backbone. Yes, I think HR 3200 is ineffectual, and, in fact, stupid, but no worse than the status quo. It's better in that it will expand coverage availability and they will be measuring and focused on that goal, unlike the past. But HR 3200 is really just the forward momentum of the federal bureaucracy amidst the status quo snafu.

Medicare benefits will be diminished gradually, physician independence and patient autonomy will be negatively impacted somewhat (whcih point is where WHO DOES credit the US with world superiority), but that was an inevitable result of spiralling costs.

It is what it is and probably as it must be - inexorable progress.

Good luck to us all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:03 PM

No, you're right Jack. I'm just still smarting from him labelling the dismantling of the employer-based system as "right wing."

Destroying federal jurisdiction over health care in the non-Medicare markets probably does, however, qualify as "right wing." I wouldn't support it, and that's why I avoided mentioning the subject, long before his speech.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:08 PM

I mean I wouldn't support it as an obstacle to nationwide reform.

It IS the status quo that states control insurance UNLESS it is employer-provided.

Six or seven years ago someone leaked a video of a training session being given by an Aetna executive to Aetna claims processors in Alaska. He unabashedly explained how to treat the employer-covered beneficiaries more callously than those with individual coverage governed by state insurance protections.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

"Malpractice is a Republican talking point, little else."

          Okay, say I'm a Canadian national, and I go in for a colonoscopy and they amputate my right leg below the knee. What recourse do I have?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:21 PM

A job training program, I think. Free wheelchair. What do you want?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM

well ... if your a canadian national you'll have to wait in line for about (at least) 4-5 months for a colonoscophy ... and maybe in that time frame you might develop gangrene in your right foot. The symptoms in your colon and gangrene caused by by all the junk donuts and bad coffee consumed over one's live time at Tim Horton's.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:31 PM

Helpful - Very Helpful!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:58 PM

I hope that comment about the colonoscopy was tongue in cheek, because my father-in-law, who is a Canadian national, sure didn't have to wait several months for his colonoscopy. He waited pretty much the same amount of time as JtS did when he got his here in the US (way back when he had insurance), which was around two or three weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:10 PM

You don't often see colonoscopy and tongue in the same sentence, but I'm sure it was.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:11 PM

Well, it's at least 5 months here in Saint John. In fact a friend of mine is currently going into 6 months of waiting now. My sister and cousin waited around 4 months in Toronto. Ann (my wife waited a month ... but then she was bumped up to the front of the line after being rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding). The cause of her issue was determined to be the result of being perscribed aspirin and Plavex (a rather dangerous mixture, btw).

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:15 PM

Rig:

What were you doing with your right leg up to the knee up your ass in the first place? Isn't that a far-fetched example? And are you sure it was your knee and not your, um, neck?



A

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:32 PM

JtS has been waiting years for his next one. He's overdue by three of four years, and he may have to wait until he's 65 (14 years from now), when he qualifies for medicare if we don't get major health care reform before then.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:41 PM

I'm certainly not debunking medicare .... what we have up here is certainly better than what you have down there, but it does have it's frustrations.

I hope you do get some sort of solution before long, the whole question of it is inconceivable to me .... tell JtS to hang in there.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:58 PM

By the way, the health insurer horror anecdotes that Obama relates all arise under employer-provided insurance. States do not allow these things to happen to their citizens when they have any say in the matter. So, having enlisted or having been recruited to support and perpetuate that same inequitable situation, when he grabs the sound bite "hold insurers accountable," he is (and almost all other Congresspersons and Senators are) being disingenuous in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:12 PM

"And are you sure it was your knee and not your, um, neck?"

             Which ever is was, Amos, if I'd been in Canada--the way things sound--I would have waited so long it wouldn't have mattered anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:50 PM

What a Canadian does in the case of malpractive, Rig, is the same thing an American does. He launches legal action against the doctor and seeks compensation. This does not mean he's suing the government. He's not. He's suing the doctor responsible for the malpractice (and possibly the hospital). The only part the government plays in the person's treatment at all is that they pay the medical practitioner after treatment is given. They handle the billing for the medical work. Period. The medical staff are the ones who must defend themselves in a malpractice suit, and the government does not assist them in doing so.

There IS no practical difference, as far as I can see, in a case of a malpractice suit in Canada or in the USA. It's up to the courts to decide in favor of the patient or the doctor.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:01 PM

It sounds like there's a huge difference in wait times from one province to the next. My father-in-law currently lives in Newfoundland and has absolutely no complaints about the care he gets there. He was living in Ontario when he had the colonoscopy I referenced above. My mother-in-law lives in Ontario and she loves the care she gets there and as her rant indicated, she never has to wait for care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:02 PM

And here's the difference between waiting for treatment in Canada or the USA, Rig.

In the USA, if you are really RICH you get treatment much faster than other people do and it's much better their is...while if you're poor, you probably don't get it at all, and if you're somewhere in the middle then it may bankrupt you.

In Canada everyone gets treatment exactly the same way at the same level of service, no citizen or permanent resident is excepted or denied, it's usually quite prompt and good treatment, and a millionaire receives exactly the same level of treatment that a middle class person or a poor person receives.

EQUALITY of medical care. That's democracy. Same as equality before the law. It's a basic human right, and to deny it is a CRIME.

You don't live in a democracy, Rig, you live in an elitist criminal oligarchy that just pretends to be a democracy. (when it comes to providing medical care for its public, that is)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:03 PM

for the record, here in the US, I've been waiting since early August for an appointment for an examination in order to schedule a colonoscopy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:12 PM

One major problem here in Canada is a shortage of Doctors and nurses. If and when the U.S. decides to take on Health care (administered by the gov't) you will in all likelihood experience the same issue. And with the shortage you will see lineups for specialized care ... if not a wait time to see your family doctor (if you are lucky to have one).

It's a payoff ... but then you will not "have to sell the farm", in the event of having a major illness.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:30 PM

More on Congressman Joe Wilson, Republican, South Carolina, who yelled "You Lie!" during President Obama's speech to Congress:

Friday, September 11, 2009
Wilson in Trouble

"In a matter of seconds Wednesday night Joe Wilson went from being pretty safe for reelection to one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in the country.

Wilson trails Democratic challenger Rob Miller 44-43 in a PPP survey conducted Thursday night and Friday morning. Last year Wilson defeated Miller 54-46.

62% of voters in SC-2 disapprove of Wilson's actions while just 29% think they were ok. By a 48-41 margin Republicans think what he did was fine, but independents are opposed to it by a 66/25 margin and Democrats are 84/10.

While there is a pretty strong consensus among respondents that the way Wilson expressed his opinion is inappropriate, they are almost evenly divided about whether the substance of his comment was correct. 42% think that Obama was lying when he said illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered by his health care plans, while 46% think he was telling the truth.

Overall 49% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Wilson in the future because he called Obama a liar, while 35% say they are more likely to do so. 56% of Republicans say that Wilson's calling out the President makes them more likely to support him."

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/09/wilson-in-trouble.html



-snip-

And reports are that Rob Miller, a Iraqi veteran and Wilson's Democratic opponent in the 2010 election has received more than $750,000 dollars in donations in the 2 days since Wilson's "You Lie!" outburst. In the same time period, Wilson received around $200,000 in donations from his supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:37 PM

For the benefit of the dedicated Yank-bashers out there, I'd like to repeat the request made by the originator of this thread:

This thread is dedicated to Americans who want to study the issues attendant to "health care reform" in the United States.

I respectfully request that foreigners continue to provide their thoughts on the relative merits of their own systems to existing threads dedicated to that subject. I suggest that Americans interested in positive change resist responding to input from people who do not understand our system or the substantive issues to be addressed. This is complex subject matter and difficult enough even for us to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:16 PM

All true art, but for one thing.

Americans are being misinformed about the alternatives.

for example the NHS.

If you want to make a fair judgement then you need to know that.

Right now a lot of your politicians are trying to convince you that creating a safety net for the most vulneravle in society is somehow a threat to your way of life.

The reasons and examples they are giving are not true.

This is useful for you to know as it leaves you with the question "then why the opposition."

I would venture to suggest that those who oppose it are greedy and don't want to have to live up to their responsibilities.

I would also venture to suggest that many of Obama's opponents just don't like being talked down to by a black guy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:38 PM

Couple of straw-men lurking here...

1. Malpractice law suits: Pure Republican bullsh*t... Here we are spending 17% of our GNP and don't rank in the top 20 in either life expectancy or infant mortality... One would think that if doctors are all that sacred of being sued then these numbers wouldn't be this shockingly lousy...

2. Immigration: Yeah, the Repubs are now ready to talk immigartion... Where were they when their own President wanted to talk it??? Hmmmmmm????

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:40 PM

To lox:

>those who oppose it are greedy and don't want to have to live up to their responsibilities.<

This is (largely) true for a great many, I think. It is disappointing to see the great bulk of the debate addressing "what's in it for me" and "Here's what's in it for you." That applies to SO many identifiable groups of every stripe and interest.

As of yesterday, newspapers were saying the minimal public option idea may have to go down in flames because people are realizing "it may raise some employee premiums." Well, duh.

The problem in discussions, though, is that the "it" (in "oppose it") is ever changing and very, very different than an NHS or single payer function, and the discussion gets complicated as well given that the public assistance mechanism(s) currently exist as a very large but unsatisfactory "it."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:49 PM

On the subject of wait times for colonoscopies, JtS told me that it's only routine colonoscipies that people have to wait for. He said that if there are any irregularities that show up in a medical examination, that person gets bumped closer to the front of the line, as was also noted by another poster above.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:56 PM

Also, Lox: I think the Democratic protagonists failed to emphasize that aspect from the start and keep it in focus. Instead they said "We're going to this for you! And this! And this! And this!

I've been waiting for more than a half century for a colonoscopy but that's patient autonomy for you.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:58 PM

It's quite right that we outsiders should refrain from diverting discussion here into the kind of reforms that aren't on the agenda in the states (more's the pity). After all, that's what those opposed to any significant change have managed to do with some success.

But it's not accurate to use the term "Yank bashers" of those who want to see the reforms backed by the President, and by a majority oif American win the day.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 08:15 PM

Carol ... I agree with what jts told you ... examples i mentioned, such as my wife being bumped to the front of the line (still it took a little under a month), and the others I mentioned are for routine colonoscipies.

National Health care provides for accessible medical treatment for all the citizens, a wonderful process for any civilized nation ... but, the downside is, this increases the demand for medical personnel ... since the government allocates the cost, they also control the number of doctors to be 'on the payroll' .... thus an economic threshold for the number of doctors allocated limits their accessibility. One solution is to lower the standard for those that graduate from medical schools .... or lower the expectation for doctors graduating on a high $dollar$ value for their services. But, since Canada and the U.S. have a capitalist system based on a worker's value I can never see doctors going into the profession with moral, humane values foremost in their mind.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:06 PM

Heric - I fear as well that on this issue Obama's usual tactic of patience, endurance and diplomacy is turning into a form of appeasement.

Sometimes you have to be a man about things and on this issue Obama needs to be not only clearer but more assertive and gutsy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:19 PM

"thus an economic threshold for the number of doctors allocated limits their accessibility"

"One solution is to lower the standard for those that graduate from medical schools"


Can you provide evidence of the above in an existing NHS service?

Becase I I have attested, I have never known any lack of accessibility in th UK and I've lived all over.


"or lower the expectation for doctors graduating on a high $dollar$ value for their services"


Can you explain what this means?


"since Canada and the U.S. have a capitalist system based on a worker's value I can never see doctors going into the profession with moral, humane values foremost in their mind."


Doctors in the UK, USA and canada all do it for the same reason ... because its a good career! Doctors in the UK aren't doing it for nothing - they earn over £100,000 year at least - NHS or not.

Besides which the private option still exists here so even with an NHS it doesn't mean that we live in any kind of totalitarian regime.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:31 PM

OK, so now a guy from the UK is bashing one from Canada, claiming he knows nothing about living in a NHS system.   Another formerly interesting thread goes down the drain. Goodby, all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:40 PM

For the benefit of the dedicated Yank-bashers out there...

I havent noticed any, Art. There have been several bullshit-bashers from across the pond, however....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:46 PM

The thing that I find really interesting, and that the American media is apparently not bothering to tell most Americans about is:

Canada spends 10% of its yearly budget on health care and manages with that 10% to provide free health care for all Canadians.

The USA spends 17% of its yearly budget on health care and cannot do anything even approaching that and has an enormous number of Americans with NO health insurance or free coverage either.

Amazing isn't it?

All you would have to do to save a tremendous amount of USA tax money is completely abolish your present system in the USA and copy the Canadian system in every way. You would save 7% of the USA's yearly budget for other things!

I gather the Republicans don't know this. ;-) Or they're pretending they don't, anyway. I think the Democrats are also pretending they don't know it. (and I mean at the top party level when I say that, I don't mean the individual people on this forum)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:01 PM

Joe Wilson has raised more the $700,000.00 since he "You Lie" incident. He's on his way to re-election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:12 PM

Docotor's in Canada are basically civil servants ... i.e. employees of the government which has a limited budget to spend on them .... the demand for doctors exceeds the the quantity available. I cannot answer for Britain's solution to this ... maybe some catter from Britain can.

As to lower the $dollar$ expectation ... you have answered that question ... it is a rewarding $career$ ... unlike Cuba where doctors go into the profession for services of humanity as opposed to a rewarding $career$ ... a doctor's wages there are equivalent to a government clerk's ... I should add the standard of Cuba's doctor's graduating from their medical schools and going into the profession is very high.

The province in which I live, New Brunswick, Doctor's have one of the highest (doctor) salaries in Canada ... a few years ago the province had to do this to lure doctors to the province .... this spring the provincial government imposed a salary freeze ... doctor's have now taken this to court ... there is a serious shortage of physician's here ... so much so it is pretty well impossible for someone moving to the province to obtain a family physician. One must go to a local clinic.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:31 PM

I should add ... Since New Brunswick pays a considerable high salary to it's physicians, than the rest of Canada ... it still has a difficult time attracting doctors ... reason being, there are stringent bureaucratic policies controlling what a doctor can, and cannot do.

The wage freeze imposed on physician's salaries is for 5 years

I know this since a good friend of mine is a pathologist. He's a rarity since he came here from the U.S. ... he makes less, puts up with the bureaucracy, but likes our health care system ... he could make more in the U.S. but likes the trade off here much more.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:33 PM

Talking about the NHS and the system of health care in Canada and comparing how they work is interesting - but, as heric has pointed out, it just ain't relevant to the current debate/rough-house in the USA, which is what this thread wasintended to be about. It belongs in another thread. Natural drift in a thread is fair enough, but hi-jacking it so that the discussion gets aborted is something else.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:40 PM

oh



ok



my apologies

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:46 PM

"As matters now stand, the insurance companies claim $450 billion a year of our health-care dollars."

It's Simple: Medicare for All

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:59 PM

And why the hell not? You all should now why by now.

Because we've lost.

We're being taught there is no such thing as change we can believe in.

There is only the inexorable march of bureaucracy and "significant political resistance."

Look carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:25 AM

Who the hell are these public servants to tell us we're not even allowed to discuss Medicare for All or Wyden-Bennett? They are spineless nobodies serving the lobbyists, even after we thought we gave them so much power to effect "change we can believe in."

They tell us HR 3200 or nothing? The public debate should have had up to four options: Medicare for All, Wyden-Bennett, HR 3200, or status quo default. The debate couldn't have gotten any louder than it did anyway. The same people would be screaming the same things ("death panels!") anyway.

No vision. No spine. "Can't we all just get along and do what we were able to squeeze out of the lobbyists?"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:32 AM

Sometimes countries ought to listen to their songwriters.

"The Power and the Glory" by Phil Ochs

Come and take a walk with me thru this green and growing land
Walk thru the meadows and the mountains and the sand
Walk thru the valleys and the rivers and the plains
Walk thru the sun and walk thru the rain

(CH) Here is a land full of power and glory
Beauty that words cannot recall
Oh her power shall rest on the strength of her freedom
Her glory shall rest on us all (on us all)

From Colorado, Kansas, and the Carolinas too
Virginia and Alaska, from the old to the new
Texas and Ohio and the California shore
Tell me, who could ask for more?

Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of her poor
Only as free as the padlocked prison door
Only as strong as our love for this land
Only as tall as we stand

But our land is still troubled by men who have to hate
They twist away our freedom & they twist away our fate
Fear is their weapon and treason is their cry
We can stop them if we try

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:53 AM

Thursday, January 25, 2007
Families USA Conference, Washington, DC
Thank you Ron Pollack and thank you Families USA for inviting me to speak here this morning.

On this January morning of two thousand and seven, more than sixty years after President Truman first issued the call for national health insurance, we find ourselves in the midst of an historic moment on health care. From Maine to California, from business to labor, from Democrats to Republicans, the emergence of new and bold proposals from across the spectrum has effectively ended the debate over whether or not we should have universal health care in this country.

Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday. The President's latest proposal he announced this week has some elements that are interesting, but it basically does little to bring down cost or guarantee coverage.

There will be many others offered in the coming campaign, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let's make one thing clear right here, right now:

In the 2008 presidential campaign and Congressional campaigns all across the country, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether. It must be a question of how. We have the ideas. We have the resources. Now we have to find the will to pass a plan by the end of the next president's first term.

Let me repeat that: I am absolutely determined that, by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country. There's no reason why we can't accomplish that .

I know there's a cynicism out there about whether this can happen, and there's reason for it. Every four years, health care plans are offered up in campaigns with great fanfare and promise. I'm sure that this campaign season will be no exception. People evaluate them for a day, and then they move on to find out who made the latest blooper or gaffe on the campaign trail. And by the time a president is sworn in, the interest groups and the partisans have torn down whatever ideas have been offered... and we're back to business as usual.

But once those campaigns end, the plans collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving the rest of America to struggle with skyrocketing costs. For too long, this debate has been stunted by what I call the smallness of our politics - the idea that there isn't much we can agree on or do about the major challenges facing our country.

And when some try to propose something bold, the interests groups and the partisans treat it like a sporting event, with each side keeping score of who's up and who's down, using fear and divisiveness and other cheap tricks to win their argument, even if we lose our solution in the process. . . .

For years, the can't-do crowd has scared the American people into believing that universal health care would mean socialized medicine, burdensome taxes, rationing - that we should just stay out of the way, let the market do what it will, and tinker at the margins.

.. . .
This isn't a problem of money, this is a problem of will. A failure of leadership. We already spend $2.2 trillion a year on health care in this country. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, who's recently developed an interesting new health care plan of his own, tells it this way:

"For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for just seven families, and guaranteed every single American quality, affordable health care.

. . .

At a time when businesses are facing increased competition and workers rarely stay with one company throughout their lives, we also have to ask if the employer-based system of health care itself is still the best for providing insurance to all Americans. . . .

And so Washington no longer has an excuse for caution. Leaders no longer have a reason to be timid. And America can no longer afford inaction. That's not who we are - and that's not the story of our nation's improbable progress.

Time to Push Health Care Boundaries Again
Never forget that we have it within our power to shape history in this country. It is not in our character to sit idly by as victims of fate or circumstance, for we are a people of action and innovation, forever pushing the boundaries of what's possible. Now is the time to push those boundaries once more.
. .


Etc.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaHealthIns.htm

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 01:19 AM

Manifesto: 'Lobbyists Nation of America' 16 Principles
Lobbyists destined to fill a void left by democracy's failings. Voters are irrational, cannot be trusted to act without guidance from lobbyists.

Lobbyists are the new behavioral nudgers guiding America. Forget behavioral scientists, special interest lobbyists will do the real nudging.

Lobbyists must nudge voters to elect "friendly" politicians. Lobbyists must invest millions to elect officials favorable to special interests.

Lobbyists are the new "unseen hand" of American Capitalism. Capitalism's new "unseen hand" is the enlightened deals of 261,000 lobbyists

Lobbyists will guide economic recovery for special interests. Congress, the president and regulators all have a price, find it and pay it.

Lobbyists protect special interests using taxpayer money. The wealthy will have ready access to the assets and credits of the Treasury.

Lobbyists amass extra capital anticipating a new meltdown. Plan ahead for the next recession by stockpiling benefits for your clients.

Lobbyists hire new blood directly from inside government. The contacts of senators and congressmen are worth millions to clients.

Lobbyists reward politicians, treat them like co-lobbyists. Everyone in Washington wants to get rich off big government, help them

Lobbyists must defeat programs unfavorable to clients. Programs that weaken the power of the rich must be aggressively defeated.

Lobbyist clients' interests come before public interest. Principles of fiduciary duty mean clients take precedence over public needs.

Lobbyists must defeat or gut financial literacy programs. Intelligent, informed investors undercut special interests; Kill the CFPA.

Lobbyists give traders access to commercial bank assets. Investment banks switched to get access to deposits for high-risk trading.

Lobbyists never help mortgagees and credit-card holders. Helping failing homeowners and card holders means less for bank insiders.

Lobbyists want cap-and-trade derivatives for a new bull market. America needs a new bubble, new bull -- global warming trades will do trick.

Lobbyists must reward the rich, eliminate the "death tax." Eliminating inheritance taxes assures continuity of wealthy gene pools.



From

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15038

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 04:26 AM

It's entirely appropriate in this thread for people from the UK and Canada to be discussing the relative merits of their systems because there has been an ongoing discussion by people in the US that they still would like this country to adopt a single payer system. And there are also people in Congress who are trying to make that happen (note the message from Dennis Kucinich above).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 04:38 AM

Let me rephrase my last post...

"It's entirely appropriate in this thread for people from the UK and Canada to be discussing the relative merits of their systems because there has been an ongoing discussion by people in the US here in this thread that they still would like this country to adopt a single payer system. And there are also people in Congress who are trying to make that happen (note the message from Dennis Kucinich above)."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:14 AM

On the subject of New Brunswick's doctor shortage, it looks to me like the problem isn't with single payer health care itself, but rather with the way New Brunswick administers its single payer system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:59 AM

Exactly Carol .... a case of too much government, especially when the governer's of the NHS are not physicians .... the biggest problem of NHS. This is the issue where harmonious balance has to be met ... especially in a capitalist system which both our countries have.


whooops


sorry ... thread drift ... I think ... but then it's a very confusing, misunderstood subject

again my apologies

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 06:32 AM

"OK, so now a guy from the UK is bashing one from Canada,"

Perhaps Number 6 and I should be the arbiters on whether or not we are bashing each other.

I'm pretty confident that he would agree that I responded to points that he made and not to any aspect of his character.

That's called engaging in debate.

And when he responded to my questions he wasn't bashing me either.

Art - if you aren't prepared to engage in the debate how do expect to learn anything?

As Carol pointed out, US catters have referred to the UK and Canadian systems on this thread.

I guess that makes my comments relevant.


In my view, the complex minefield of the alternatives being discussed is a beautifully crafted red herring o keep peoples minds occupied on absurd technicalities when the issue is that the worlds most allegedly advanced nation only provides health care to those who can afford it.


That isn't "yank bashing" that's an issue currently on the American political agenda having been brought up by the president of America.


Is he yank bashing too?



Don't be so precious Art.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:42 AM

Good post, Brucie...

Yo, LH... Do you really expect the corporate owned media to tell the people the truth about how the US spends 17% of its GNP on health care but can't crack the Top 20 in life expectancy of infant mortality... 2nd Question: Even if the corprate media did tell the people the truth about these unfotunate statistics, do you believe that the people who are so filled with hate toward Obama and the media would believe it??? I think not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:32 AM

I don't think you should be allowed to called yourself a 'civilised' country until every single person in your country has access to free health care, regardless of their background.

It staggers me that the USA still doesn't have a healthcare system...and it also staggers me that so many people over there have to have medicals every time they want to apply for a job.

Yeesh! What a terrible invasion of privacy.

No nation should make the people who pay the taxes to keep that nation functioning, should also make its people live in constant fea of becoming ill, or having an accident.

I'm lucky, I have never even had to *think* about being ill, needing emergency surgery etc, because my country IS 'civliised' (in that respect at least) and the NHS is there for us all.

It's not rocket science is it? The American people have simply been denied free healthcare because it is a Corporate Business over there and those who have become mega wealthy do not want to relinquish their control.

The Americans should take to the streets about it. They should have done so decades ago, because when it comes to health, they are being incredibly deceived.

If we can do it, if Canada can do it, if many other countries can do it, then so can the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:34 AM

Apologies for the errors above. I think I need to see a doctor about my Spellchecking and Missed Out Words gene..... :0)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:40 AM

The history of health care in America has a lot to do with it, but I'd still be interested in knowing how they handle malpractice awards and cases in the UK and Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:08 AM

"The Americans should take to the streets about it. They should have done so decades ago, because when it comes to health, they are being incredibly deceived."

I agree Lizzie ..... by cutting the unnecessary, deceitful and obscene military budget by about about 3/4'rs they could provide enough adequate health care for all the people and still have some chump change left over, .... and still be able to defend themselves

biLL ... and I'm not yankee bashing here ... but do apologize once again if I'm thread drifting ... am I ??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:32 AM

Joe Wilson has raised more the $700,000.00 since he "You Lie" incident. He's on his way to re-election.

Folks in The Palmetto State have always been a little off- they've also given us the Civil War and Lindsay Graham - and I'm not sure which one's worse.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 10:41 AM

Malpractice is a strawman that has so little to do with healthcare reform that it is a joke... I mean, less than 1/10thof 1% of what is spent on health care is for law suits... Now when one considers that we spend 17% of our GNP on health care and less than 1/10th of 1% is for law suits then we're really talking about a non issue in the big scheme of things...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 10:55 AM

Speaking of Lindsay Graham, did anyone else notice that he brought his hands together to clap at one point during Obama's speech and thought better of it at the last minute and just rubbed his hands together instead? That was pretty funny. And sad.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 11:06 AM

Malpractice insurance is paid for 'out of pocket" by Canadian physicians .... then again since they are basically civil servant employees earning an income dictated by the government this insurance takes a good hunk of $change$ out of their paycheck.

Case in point ... my friend the pathologist. Yhe triage department of the Saint John Regional Hospital has a severe shortage if required doctors ... so bad that that patholists we're ask to fill in during the evenings. My friend thought he'd help out ... but declined when he found out his insurance rates would increase dramatically.

but ... with all that being said, malpractice isn't a problem with national healthcare ... it is a result of just plain simple human greed.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 11:12 AM

Malpractice is handled here (in Canada) just the same way it is in the USA, Rig. You bring legal action against the doctor and the courts handle it from there.

It is irrelevant to this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 11:46 AM

A 2006 study found neurologists in the United States ordered more tests in theoretical clinical situations posed than their German counterparts; U.S. clinicians are more likely to fear litigation which may be due to the teaching of defensive strategies which are reported more often in U.S. teaching programs. Counting both direct and indirect costs, other studies estimate the total cost of malpractice between 5% and 10% of total U.S. medical costs.

Defensive medicine is the practice of diagnostic or therapeutic measures conducted primarily not to ensure the health of the patient, but as a safeguard against possible malpractice liability. Fear of litigation has been cited as the driving force behind defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is especially common in the United States of America, with rates as high as 79% to 93% , particularly in emergency medicine, obstetrics, and other high-risk specialties.

Defensive medicine takes two main forms: assurance behavior and avoidance behavior. Assurance behavior involves the charging of additional, unnecessary services in order to a) reduce adverse outcomes, b) deter patients from filing medical malpractice claims, or c) provide documented evidence that the practitioner is practicing according to the standard of care, so that if, in the future, legal action is initiated, liability can be pre-empted. Avoidance behavior occurs when providers refuse to participate in high risk procedures or circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM

Massachusetts Medical Society First-of-its-kind Survey of Physicians Shows Extent and Cost of the Practice of Defensive Medicine and its Multiple Effects of Health Care on the State Physician's group says fear of liability costs billions in defensive medicine, reduces access to care, and may be unsafe for patients; calls for fundamental change of medical liability system

Waltham, Mass. -- November 17, 2008 -- A first-of-its-kind survey of physicians by the Massachusetts Medical Society on the practice of "defensive medicine" – tests, procedures, referrals, hospitalizations, or prescriptions ordered by physicians out of the fear of being sued – has shown that the practice is widespread and adds billions of dollars to the cost of health care in the Commonwealth. The physicians' group says such defensive practices, conservatively estimated to cost a minimum of $1.4 billion, also reduce access to care and may be unsafe for patients.

The Investigation of Defensive Medicine in Massachusetts is the first study of its kind to specifically quantify defensive practices across a wide spectrum and among a number of specialties. The study is also the first of its kind to link such data directly with Medicare cost data.

The survey queried physicians in eight specialties between November 2007 and April 2008: anesthesiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and obstetrics/gynecology. Lead researchers were Manish K. Sethi, M.D., of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery of Massachusetts General Hospital and a member of the Medical Society's Board of Trustees and its Committee on Professional Liability, and Robert H. Aseltine, Jr., Ph.D., of the Institute for Public Health Research at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington. The results were released to physicians last week at the Medical Society's 2008 Interim Meeting of its House of Delegates, November 14-15 in Waltham.

The study is also believed to be one of the largest of its kind with nearly 900 physicians completing the survey.

"This survey clearly shows that the fear of medical liability is a serious burden on health care, said Dr. Sethi. "The fear of being sued is driving physicians to defensive medicine and dramatically increasing health care costs. This poses a critical issue, as soaring costs are the biggest threat to the success of Massachusetts health reform efforts....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:46 PM

There's no question that there is an ongoing orgy of very costly litigation (much of it unjustified) going on in the United States...and not just in regards to the medical profession. It seems to affect almost everything these days.

And that results in a lot more expenses for everybody.

So who is driving it? Is it due to aggressive marketing of their services by lawyers or is it due to a lot of spoiled and combative people who are looking for someone to give them a hell of a lot of money, because they feel entitled to their own five minutes of notoriety and financial windfall? Or is it due to a great many abuses of the general public by profit-seeking scoundrels? Or all three of those?

What do you think, Sawzaw? I know something is behind it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 02:45 PM

I think part of it may be the fact that we pay so much money for health care in this country. Since we pay so much (both in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, as well as in fees at the point of service), we expect the very best in care, and if we don't get that, we get revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 03:18 PM

Rig,

If you go to bbc.co.uk and click on news, and then type NHS into thee bbc internal search engine you will find examples of how the NHS compensates people who have suffered from gross negligence.

One thing that every health system globally has in common however is that if someone accidentally amputates your leg, they cannot unamputate it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 03:25 PM

You mean, Lox, that you don't have the recourse of reattachment? lol

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:46 PM

"Malpractice is handled here (in Canada) just the same way it is in the USA, Rig. You bring legal action against the doctor and the courts handle it from there... It is irrelevant to this discussion... So who is driving it?"

       Yes it is relevant to this discussion because both Obama, the leaders of Congress, and the Republicans all say that one of the major problems with healthcare is the spiraling cost. A large part of the costs are the reality of defensive medicine--as Sawzaw points out--and the ridiculous awards that are given to claimants in court, much of which ends up in the pockets of attorneys.

      As to who is driving it: The Trial Lawyers Association seems to be the group who continue to keep the Democrats from going anywhere near tort reform. So that's where I'd look first.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 06:26 PM

Righto, Rig. I think that's where I might look first too. But I think Carol's point about the high costs of treatment in the USA probably has much to do with it as well.

Think about it. You get free treatment in Canada...and the doctor doesn't handle it right. So maybe you sue him for malpractice. But then, say, you get the same treatment in the USA...the doctor doesn't handle it right...and it also costs you $35,000! In which case are you more likely going to get REALLY angry at the doctor and launch a malpractice lawsuit for big bucks?

Seems pretty obvious to me...when you've just lost $35,000 dollars, that's when. Lawsuits are driven by two motivations:

1. revenge
2. and the desire to cash in.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 06:38 PM

So long as malpractice is all about culpable behaviour, fair enough. But we live in a world where things go wrong, and someone else isn't always to balme, and that is a truth that can get lost.

When something happens which means we need extra help, or extra resources, we should be able to get them as of right, and it shouldn't depend on whether someone can be blamed or not. Where a society fails to recognise that and to make adequate provision, that inevitably fuels the litigation culture.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:57 PM

The reason that US patients recieve more tests has nothing to do with malpractice... It has to do with profit...

"Sooner or later it all comes down to money..." (Springsteen)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:59 PM

Medical malpractice reform can be implemented to reign in costs of any and all health care financing structure regardless of type, from the small town doctor who gets paid in produce by farmers to a universal single payer NHS. It always could be and always can be attempted. It has nothing to do with choosing the system's financing structure, which is the issue before the country right now. It's a cynical side issue being used as a wedge issue.

The same is basically true about illegal immigrants receiving care. They get it now. Stop it now - stop it in the future, but don't change the subject just to make the real issue seem even more complicated and divisive than it already is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:48 PM

Yes, LH, you're right. When the cost is outrageous to begin with the demand for compensation is elevated. But all the tests are backup for when something might go wrong.

               And McGrath is right too. Shit happens! It isn't always somebody's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:53 PM

"Medical malpractice reform can be implemented to reign in costs of any and all health... It has nothing to do with choosing the system's financing structure..."

    "The same is basically true about illegal immigrants receiving care."


               I think that's probably true, but if the Democrats wanted to get something meaningful passed, they could concede these two issues and the opposition wouldn't have much ammunition.
               Everyone knows that the reason they don't is: (1) The Trial Lawyers are one of the Democrats strongest financial supporters, and (2) they're trying to solidify the Hispanic vote.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:17 PM

What have the Repubs offered that would make the Dems think they have to give anything, Rigs??? Don't answer that 'cause the answer is absolutely nothing at all...

One has to offer something in excahnge in any negotiation... The Repubs just hate Obama and want health care reform stopped regardless of its worth... The Repubs did this to Clinton because the were scared to death that if health care reform had gone thru back then then the Dems would have been heros for decades to come... The Repubs don't want that to happen...

There is no wiggle room here so screw the Repubs... They have shown their hand... Too late for them... Way too late...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:36 PM

Bobert - Yes, I agree that the Democrats can pass something without Republican participation. But they would need to concede on a few issues if they want to pass something that will be of very much help to the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 02:54 PM

2 points:
a)The practice of defensive medicine is cenrtainly encouraged by the fact thet the healthcare industry makes a bundle from unnecessary testing.

b)Rather than limit the size of malpractice awards, just remove malpractice suits from juries, and have them tried by an expert panel (who just might know of what they're judging).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 07:05 PM

Its about setting something up that is simple and that works.

Its purpose is to make health care available to the lowest strata of society.

The funding will ultimately come from the public purse.

Facing up to these realities is the first step.

Having the guts to build it so that the poorest in society have their health interests met as opposed to ensuring that the richest in society have their interests met is the next step.

This is an unavoidable factor.

The richest - who already have health care - will not want to pay tax dollars to help the poorest.

That is what they will do their best to avoid.

Sucking up to them will result in nothing of any use being built.

Obama has to be courageous plain and simple.


He will be accused of being socialist etc.


This will be the test of his mettle.


What's it going to be?


doing what needs to be done regardless of the lies that will be told about him etc ...

or bowing down to republican pressure and giving america an empty useless vessel.


Its time. Men or Mice.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 07:31 PM

You nailed it, Lox, but he passed that up. And the Republicans have virtually nothing to do with it - lobbyists did it all first. Republicans are just shouting like class clowns when another kid's school project has been messed up.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 10:07 PM

Dick Greenhaus 'nailed it'....

There are courses taught in how to 'play' a jury, and well-worn techniques in selecting & rejecting jurors to get the result you want!

There is well-worn saying something to the effect that "a jury consists of 12 people assembled to determine who has the best lawyer"

A panel of experts is FAR more likely to determine whether or not real malpractice has occured. (yes, I realize that selecting the panel has its own pitfalls, but it would be easier to oversee than juries)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 10:21 PM

That's true about juries, Bill. They are easily chosen, controlled, and manipulated to secure a desired result.

I think heric is also dead right when he says: "lobbyists did it all first. Republicans are just shouting like class clowns when another kid's school project has been messed up"

Lobbyists are the key. Lobbyists are the ones in control of this agenda, and that means that the insurance companies and other big money outfits who employ the lobbyists are the ones really controlling how the legislators deal with the matter.

No surprise to me.

Dennis Kucinich is pointing all this out on his website. I bet the mainstream news media don't even talk about it, do they? About what Dennis Kucinich is saying, I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 08:24 AM

All of the above is true, but what Lox says about it being paid from the public purse will not happen now.

             It could be that the lobbyists--if one can assume they're all on the same page--do not want tort reform, because it is really lack of tort reform that mandates all the extensive testing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:09 AM

Why does everybody assume that a "public option" would be funded by tax dollars? The US Postal Service is a model of how it could work. And whether or not you believe that the Post Office does a good job, it exists, and is still the most economical way to get written mail and packages delivered.

A workable public option healthcare organization could easily be funded by members who choose to participate; it would have to be a national (or at least a multi-stste) operation to make it portable and to give it enough bargaining leverage to force costs down. And, of course, if anyone didn't like it, there would always be the opportunity to join a privately-run plan.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM

In addition to our country's poor availability of health care to the sick and injured, we have a problem with many poor neighborhoods lacking grocery stores with fresh fruits and vegetables. Some areas have only convenience marts with junk food and fast food restaurants. The promotion of corn syrup in products has grown in recent decades. Some areas are unsafe for kids to play outside or walk to school. We've discusssed the Mountain Dew Mouth here on mudcat. There are many areas of the US that discourage health in the way people grow up without nutritious diets, without exercise, with too many kids learning to smoke from everyone around them smoking.

I recently saw news on a mobile van business selling fresh fruits and vegetables in urban areas where people don't have a fresh food store available to them. Prevention means more than testing, and we need to examine how the Dept. of Agriculture, the Dept. of Transportation, the Dept. of Education could all contribute to helping Americans live healthier.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:43 AM

Calm down, public optioners...

"The Public Option" isn't the only way to achieve the desired results... If you look at the Neatherlands you will find that their pooling system is regulated and non-profit and works as well as any other system...

Me thinks that if I know this then Obama and the Dems do, as well, and that he really does have a future option (no pun intended) of coming off the public option to let the Repubs and flat earthers think they won one...

Just the way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:50 PM

" . . . if anyone didn't like it, there would always be the opportunity to join a privately-run plan."

Maybe, but we don't actually know that, do we? If the public option includes employees whose employers have chosen to pay the 8% of payroll tax (as in HR 3200, which may or may not be Obama's "my plan") to fund the "public option" rather than purchase coverage, those people would have to use their own after tax dollars to find a plan, if not in the exchange (where pre-exisitng damages and chronic illnesses will certainly be subject to guaranteed issue and at mandated rates, and where the individuals perhaps have vouchers or credits representing that 8% paid on their behalf) which itself seems to be destined to become the sole "public option," (ignoring the expanded Medicaid eligibility) then the individuals would have to purchase coverage in the remaining individual market, where prices may be sky high and not subject to guaranteed issue (?)

That's one heck of a run-on sentence, I know, and perhaps I missed something fundamental (e.g. in exchanges versus public option versus co-ops) so that it is actually a nonsense question . . . but I just can't figure it out.

(I'm pretty sure, though, that the exchange becomes a (the) publicly funded backstop to provide coverage, starting with $2 billion thrown into a pot by the feds (as in HR 3200), and funded with public dollars as appropriate and required beyond the 8% collected and premiums otherwise paid. Obama said before Congress this woyuld take four years to fully implement, and he would use Sen. McCain's idea of a different public option in the interim.)

Maybe Bobert's right and Obama is going to pull a rabbit out of his hat with a still undisclosed "my plan," but then why would he have said $900 billion over ten years - the same as current HR 3200 estimates?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Maryrrf
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 08:39 PM

This thread on CIGNA health insurance was posted on Facebook. Interesting viewing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 09:35 PM

Ain't no rabbit... Jus' another way of creatin' something akin to a public option... Both the Netherlands and Switzerland are using it and costs are comparable to other European countries in terms of % of GNP...

I donno... I do beleive there will be something that provides a decent level of competition or whatever passes will fail to bring down costs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:03 AM

This looks like a very interesting read on the topic: NY Times review of "One Injury, 10 Countries: A Journey in Health Care" by T. R. Reid (the review is by Abigail Zuger, M.D.)

From the review:

Mr. Reid, a veteran foreign correspondent for The Washington Post, knows from personal experience that there are indeed a dozen better alternatives. International postings from London to Japan familiarized him with many of the world's health care systems. Then a chronic shoulder problem offered the opportunity for an unusually well-controlled experiment: Mr. Reid decided to present his stiff shoulder for treatment around the world.

One shoulder, 10 countries. Admittedly it's a gimmick, but what saves the book from slumping into a sack of anecdotes like Michael Moore's 2007 documentary "Sicko" is a steel backbone of health policy analysis that manages to trap immensely complicated concepts in crystalline prose.

"The Healing of America" blends subjective and objective into a seamless indictment of our own disastrous system, an eloquent rebuttal against the arguments used to defend it, and appealing alternatives for fixing it.

...

Mr. Reid starts with a methodical clarification of terms. First: universal health care. Far from a single socialized system, the various plans other countries use to cover all their residents are quite distinct. Some are as private as our own, and most offer considerably more in the way of choice.

In Japan, and many European countries, private health insurers — all of them nonprofit — finance visits to private doctors and private hospitals through a system of payroll deductions.

In Canada, South Korea and Taiwan, the insurer is government-run and financed by universal premiums, but doctors and hospitals are private.

In Britain, Italy, Spain and most of Scandinavia, most hospitals are government-owned, and a tax-financed government agency pays doctors' bills.

In poor countries around the world, private commerce rules: residents pay cash for all health care, which generally means no health care at all.

Similarly, what Americans often consider a single unique system of health care is an illusion: we exist in a sea of not-so-unique alternatives. Like the citizens of Germany and Japan, workers in the United States share insurance premiums with an employer. Like Canadians, our older, destitute and disabled citizens see private providers with the government paying. Like the British, military veterans and Native Americans receive care in government facilities with the government paying the tab. And like the poor around the world, our uninsured pay cash, finagle charity care, or stay home.

---

And, in other news, a poll funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published in the New England Journal of Medicine (as reported on NPR) finds that nearly 3/4 of doctors polled would like some sort of public option (for most, a combination of public and private). This is at odds with the AMA position. ("The survey even found widespread support for a public option among doctors who are members of the American Medical Association, a group that's opposed to it. The AMA fears a public option eventually could lead to government putting more limits on doctors' fees.") A followup bit on NPR points out the the AMA is not particularly representative of doctors as a whole in the U.S. any more. And the AMA is careful say, "And so I think that's why we need to be very clear about what does the AMA articulate for," says Rohack. "It's to make sure that everyone has coverage that's affordable, that's portable and that is quality — that is, it covers the things you need to cover because you've got a medical condition or developed a medical illness." (From the NPR story on the poll.)

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:22 AM

The Billionaires for Wealthcare would like to thank the Teabaggers, Birthers, and Deathers for their blind support

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 05:41 AM

hahahahaha

Awesome Carol!

"If I have the money I should get first priority!"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 12:07 AM

"Talk about big wallets: Since June 29, six shadowy right-wing groups opposed to health care reform have spent more than $21 million on television ads. You read that right. $21 million, or close to a quarter million dollars per day.

Money talks. It's no wonder Republicans say political momentum is moving their way.

Republican leaders are happy to have such wealthy interests backing them up. A recent memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee boasted that right wing anger - as seen at town hall meetings and "Tea Party" protests - will translate into wins at the ballot box in 2010.

These organizations have spent $21 million to rile the right wing, but they are just getting warmed up. We need to match their intensity. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has kicked off its end-of-quarter fundraising, and we need grassroots help to make our goal. Each dollar you give by Sept. 30 will be matched by a group of senators.

These hit squads - with their patriotic-sounding names and undisclosed funding sources - say they're fighting to protect our health care system. But in reality, they just want to stop the change we all voted for in November. Here are some of the biggest spenders among the shadow groups:

Americans for Prosperity: $4,648,644. Americans for Prosperity is one of the main groups behind the "Tea Party" protest movement. It's also the cash cow behind Patients United Now, which purports to help patients by preserving the profit margins of insurance companies.




Conservatives for Patients' Rights: $4,385,071. Conservatives for Patients' Rights has hired CRC Public Relations to fight President Obama's plan to reform health care. You may not have heard of the company, but you know their work: CRC was behind the infamous "swift boat" attacks on 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry.




League of American Voters: $411,665. This group's sole reason for being appears to be spreading lies about health care reform. Its website warns that President Obama's "government takeover" of health care will "ration health care, limit important medicines and surgeries for seniors and end Medicare as we know it." According to PolitiFact.com, none of this fear mongering is true.


Money does matter. And as you can see, they're spreading around a ton of it. That and misinformation."

(Democratic PArty circular)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 02:24 PM

Dem Senator Warns of 'Big, Big Tax' on Middle Class in Baucus Bill
September 16, 2009 7:45 AM

ABC News' Teddy Davis reports:

It's not every day that you hear a Democratic senator charge that a fellow Democrat is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ripped into the health-care bill developed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mt., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The Baucus proposal would impose, starting in 2013, a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for "high-cost plans" -- defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

Health economists believe a tax on high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices.

The tax contemplated by Baucus is also a big revenue raiser. It is expected to raise $200 billion, money that Baucus is hoping to use to pay for subsidies for the uninsured.

Given how much money this kind of tax can raise, Rockefeller says he understands why it is "tempting."

The West Virginia Democrat worries, however, that a lot of middle class workers, like the coal miners in his state, will end up facing "a big, big tax" under the Baucus bill because they currently enjoy generous employer-provided health care benefits which they receive tax free.

Referring to Baucus, Rockefeller said, "He should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down and lower benefits because they are self insured, most of them, because they are larger. They will pass it down, lower benefits, and probably this will mean higher premiums for coal miners who are getting very good health care benefits for a very good reason. That is, like steelworkers and others, they are doing about the most dangerous job that can be done in America."

"So that's not really a smart idea," Rockefeller continued. "In fact, it's a very dangerous idea, and I'm not even sure the coal miners in West Virginia are aware that this is what is waiting if this bill passes."

Rockefeller made his comments on a conference call with reporters which was sponsored by the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

Rockefeller, who sits on the Finance Committee, said that he cannot support the Baucus bill unless it receives major improvements during the amendment process.

Baucus, the Finance chair, is scheduled to discuss his "chairman's mark" with reporters on Capitol Hill at 12 noon on Wednesday.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 06:34 PM

If health care reform doesn't pass, I hope they make people who have employer based insurance pay taxes on the money their employers pay towards their insurance premiums. That's what the Republicans want, and the people with employer based insurance will deserve it for not fighting harder to make our health care "system" more fair.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 08:02 PM

Check this song out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4


Unfortunately, given our mass media system, you won't hear this
song on the radio or television, but you can hear it on YouTube.


Paul Hipp, September 09, 2009

"Here is a little song celebrating our position at #37 in the world in healthcare. "We're Number 37" Come one, Come all Down to the hall Were gonna make noise Were gonna bust balls Were gonna disr...
Here is a little song celebrating our position at #37 in the world in healthcare."

"We're Number 37"

Come one, Come all
Down to the hall
Were gonna make noise
Were gonna bust balls
Were gonna disrupt
Were gonna jump in the fray
I got a list of all the things that were supposed to say
Were gonna get real rowdy
Have a barrel of fun
But were the USA so by the way be sure to bring a gun
And buddy

Were Number 37
Were the USA
Were Number 37
And were so proud to say
We got old people crying at the pharmacy
Pay your deductible
This aint the land of the f-f-f-free Grandma
Were Number 37
Were the USA

People of the town come on down
And if you got a crazy rumor you can spread it around
I kind of like my insurance and I like my health
The other 47 million can go treat themselves
To some prayer in chapel
Fold your hands and pray
Because we are a Christian nation and that is the Christian way
And brother

Were Number 37
Were the USA
The big Number 37
And were so proud to say
Were #1 one in tanks
Were #1 in planes
Were #1 in war with #2 for brains
Were Number 37
Were the USA

I drew a Hitler mustache on the president
Yea! Aint that neat
My brother had a hernia operation last year
And now hes living out on the street

Were Number 37
Were the USA
The big Number 37
And we want to keep it that way
Be sure to bring the kids
All of the boys and girls
Because the #1 health care system in the world.

Is inFrance???

Were Number 37
Were the USA
Were Number 37
And we got something to say
We pay more for less
40% in fact
Lets bite some fingers off
Shout at the handicapped
Cause buddy
Were Number 37
Were the USA

Were Number 37
Were the USA
Were Number 37
Were the USA

© Paul Hipp 2009

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 08:23 PM

Very catchy. Could go viral!

Of course when it comes to what you actually pay for your health care, the USA is way up in front of everyone else. The Number 37 is only about what you get back in return for what you pay.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 09:29 PM

Health-care debate: Prognosis is grim
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:59 AM

By JOE BLUNDO

The suspense is killing me.

Let's jump ahead to see how the national debate on health-care reform progresses.

Here's what I foresee in the coming weeks:

Late September

President Obama addresses Congress again -- and again and again. During one stretch, he speaks 11 times in four days to explain the need for health-care reform. Republicans demonstrate their opposition by holding their hands over their ears and singing "la-la-la" so they can't hear him.

Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, seeking to cash in on her role as promulgator of absurd myths, introduces a new product: "death paneling," for basement recreation rooms.

"It's lead-lined to prevent Obama's bureaucrats from using their X-ray vision to locate Granny and haul her off to be euthanized," she explains.

Insurance companies further tighten restrictions: Kids now must receive pre-approval before playing "doctor."

October

Obama portrays a patient without insurance on an episode of Grey's Anatomy to dramatize the need for health-care reform. Overnight polling shows that 52 percent of Americans still don't understand his proposals but are amused by how he looks in a hospital gown.

Republicans spread rumors that the administration will soon mandate that thermometers use Roman numerals as a first step toward European-style socialized medicine.

Vice President Joe Biden says the reform plan will improve public health and ensure that everyone in America can have arms like first lady Michelle Obama's. Outrage ensues.

The White House clarifies Biden's remark, saying that no schoolchildren will be allowed to acquire Michelle Obama arms without parental consent.

November

Obama announces that he will deliver a series of mandatory televised lectures to explain the need for health-care reform. Anyone who misses them must have an excused absence. About 296 million Americans send in a note from their mothers.

Conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck promises that he will donate a lung to someone in need if Republicans vote unanimously against health-care reform. Democrats say if he donates two lungs, they'll vote against it themselves.

Palin contends that Europeans with socialized medical care have longer life spans than Americans only because they measure age in dog years.

December

Obama takes a side job as a school nurse to dramatize the need for health-care reform. Republican Newt Gingrich urges the school's parents to let injured children lose up to a pint of blood rather than be treated by a "socialist."

A new book rockets up the best-seller charts: The Pre-Existing Condition That Stole Christmas. As in the Dr. Seuss original, the Whos battle a heartless villain -- except this one is an insurance company, so there's no happy ending.

After weeks of furious debate, Congress breaks for the holidays without voting on health-care reform.

"We're exhausted, and our doctors have prescribed rest," a tired House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tells a waitress in a coffee shop.

Says the waitress: "Glad you can afford a doctor, lady."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 12:31 PM

I wish everyone in this country would have to listen to the interview of T.R. Reid an author from Colorado who travelled the globe to research health care. He has written a book called The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. Here's one of the blurbs, but I think everyone could benefit by listening to the interview which will be available after 11a (Rocky Mtn time)today. There is a link to an earlier interview at that first link; equally as interesting.

In The Healing of America, New York Times bestselling author T. R. Reid shows how all the other industrialized democracies have achieved something the United States can't seem to do: provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost.

In his global quest to find a possible prescription, Reid visits wealthy, free market, industrialized democracies like our own-including France, Germany, Japan, the U.K., and Canada-where he finds inspiration in example. Reid shares evidence from doctors, government officials, health care experts, and patients the world over, finding that foreign health care systems give everybody quality care at an affordable cost. And that dreaded monster "socialized medicine" turns out to be a myth. Many developed countries provide universal coverage with private doctors, private hospitals, and private insurance.

In addition to long-established systems, Reid also studies countries that have carried out major health care reform. The first question facing these countries-and the United States, for that matter-is an ethical issue: Is health care a human right? Most countries have already answered with a resolute yes, leaving the United States in the murky moral backwater with nations we typically think of as far less just than our own.

The Healing of America lays bare the moral question at the heart of our troubled system, dissecting the misleading rhetoric surrounding the health care debate. Reid sees problems elsewhere, too: He finds poorly paid doctors in Japan, endless lines in Canada, mistreated patients in Britain, spartan facilities in France. Still, all the other rich countries operate at a lower cost, produce better health statistics, and cover everybody. In the end, The Healing of America is a good news book: It finds models around the world that Americans can borrow to guarantee health care for everybody who needs it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 12:44 PM

That's two votes for T. R. Reid. Thanks you guys.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 12:48 PM

OK...

1. It is going to cost way more than predicted and we should be told that.
2. There is no reason we all shouldn't pay something on a sliding scale for it, whether we already have insurance or not.
3. People have sincere fears about what will happen to their Medicare and Medicaid and their own precious insurance policies -- which is why many people, myself included, are in jobs that underutilize their massive skills.
4. We need to do it anyway. We need to do it with no delusions that it will be seamless or harmless to everyone. People will fall through the cracks and break. There will be huge strains on the system as people flood in with pent-up demand. But we need to be told that now is the time and do it anyway. mg

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 01:02 PM

Agree on all four. No. 3 hasn't been mentioned. I know an old guy who, despite being an HMO executive, didn't appreciate what donating his kidney on an emergency basis would do to his coverage after entering the individual market. He hopes, I kid you not, to get a job as a school crossing guard for the insurance benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 01:14 PM

If health were a thing that money could buy.......etc.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 02:10 PM

...didn't appreciate what donating his kidney on an emergency basis would do to his coverage

What did it do? Make it better or make it worse?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 02:15 PM

No bonus points given for kidney donors, that's for sure.


(It's not a "condition," per se, I guess, but a "risk factor" I would guess is the term. Sufficent to have the same effect as pre-existing condition.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 03:46 PM

So the insurance companies penalise kidney donors. That is really sick.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:10 PM

It's evil.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:05 PM

Carol C: Your post of September 10 at 12:50 PM: Obama was absolutely correct when he said that "not one dime will come out of the Medicare Trust Fund." There IS no Medicare Trust Fund. You may have meant the Social Security Trust Fund, but nothing could come out of that either because there is no money in it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:08 PM

A Harvard Medical School study has found that 45,000 people die each year in the US because they don't have access to health insurance. And that's not even counting all of the people who die each year in the US because their insurance providers deny them needed care.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:33 PM

One has to decide at some point, Doug, whether a society exists to actually benefit the human beings in it....or just to accumulate more money for a chosen few at the top.

And I'm quite serious about that.

Do we exist to serve money or does it exist to serve us? What is the most important thing...that a few should profit a LOT while many live in privation...or that many should profit a little so that all may live a good life? Is a win-win scenario saner and more beneficial than a win-lose scenario (which is the usual principle at work in our competitive society)? These are questions worth pondering.

How could we have a wiser and better society than we do now? I would suggest that we can do so by seeing FIRST that EVERYONE has medical care of the best sort, education of the best sort, a good job, and a decent place to live, and freedom to live in peace and without fear and to express themselves freely in their own unique and peaceful fashion...without fear.

Those who live in poverty and want experience a certain level of fear every day of their lives. We should do something about that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:39 PM

On the question of the Medicare Trust Fund, I was just repeating what Obama said in his speech.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:54 PM

No matter, it's gonna be interestin'...

Pools (co-ops) can work if properly regulated... I'd rather see a public option...

No matter.. The Senate version sucks...

Like I said, "gonna be interestin'"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:01 PM

LOL

HOWEVER...

There actually is a medicare trust fund, so Obama was absolutely correct in saying what he did. I guess the person who said there is no medicare trust fun must have gotten that bit of misinformation from FOX News, since they are the primary source of misinformation and propaganda in the US today.

Here is a report from the Social Security Administration on the status of social security and medicare, which includes the status of the medicare trust fund

A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUND REPORTS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:21 PM

Thanks, Carol. I think that's the answer - and everybody is right:

"The HI Trust Fund is inadequately financed over the next 10 years. Its assets are projected to fall below 100 percent of annual expenditures during 2011 and to be exhausted in 2017."

He's not going to "take" one dollar directly out of there (I misremembered - it wasn't dime) because there is nothing there to take. He's going to "take" it out of spending.

Medicare is the biggest problem out there. He HAS to cut costs and he HAS to get more money from somewhere BOTH for Medicare AND for expanded coverage and in a sane world he could not only admit it he would say it proudly.

They are working to save Medicare against a population that (they assume, rightly or wrongly) won't face facts.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:56 PM

But looks what happens when they leave the Byzantine structure intact as the lobbyists have already cemented before this went widely public: The providers have to accept reimbursement for Medicare patients at Medicare rates, which aren't great. They may treat Medicaid patients at Medicaid rates - much worse. They get stiffed by employer-hired insurers who have nothing to lose by stiffing them - no real recourse for bad behavior, and they made sure that protection stayed in place - even for the NEW popukation in the exhange.    Who does that leave to bear the burden of cost shifting? Taxpayers, obviously, for those who then get public asistance. It leaves the employees who fell afoul of their employer-provided benefits exposed to fantasy prices. They can't get out of it if they aren't poor enough for public support, unless they destroy their credit, face collection or go bankrupt. It also leaves the insurers with smaller patients bases without the negotiating power that large insurers with large patient armies (largely from large companies) can wield on negotiated rates. People in the smaller pools or the individual market are in a bad position.

Now: Cut Medicare reimbursement rates and limit testing and procedures, etc., as they are going to do (because they must), and what happens to all of the above?

Under HR 3200 we say, first, put a lot more of them on Medicaid. Second, take a lot of them and let them have "the exchange." A huge patient base where we will mandate minimum benefits, guaranteed issue, and rate setting. But ait - what about people who STILL aren't poor enough or Medicaid or rich enough to afford premiums, especially for a family. Well, we'll subsidize them. Maybe we'll give them a government run program as well, for a few of them.

So, even though you are ratcheting down reimbursements and costs, you can balance all of that over time, without "unfair subsidies," with mandated rate setting that will allow private insurers (or even nonprofit insurers) to function, without enhancing the deficit, and without taxing the middle class, and without anyone losing their employer-provided coverage they love so much (because they are ignorant), even while preserving the hundreds of billions or so in insurance administrative costs, and the employer's tax breaks, and, in fact, the bulk of the employee benefits industry? "Yep, we can do all that, with constant monitoring and a four or five year start up window."

That, I think, is Obama's my plan. It's stupid, ineffectual, inefficient, and I support it.

Is that irony?


It's better than the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:27 PM

If 45,000 people currently die each year because of lack of access to health insurance, and the trend of people losing their insurance continues, and if medicare goes bust, just think of the numbers of people who will be dying each year for lack of access to health insurance a few years from now. And that's not even addressing all of the insured people who die each year because their insurance providers deny them needed care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:44 PM

Everyone should support it because more people will have access to affordable insurance coverage as the bottom line.

Maybe employees will be able to sleep better at night in the face of medical bills, but I'm not sure about that because I still don't fully understand who gets into the exchange. *fn

Don't, however, be gullible enough to believe scripted lines such as "hold insurers accountable." That is pure unadulterated bullshit and they are not going to do that. They are leaving the immunity from state lawsuits in place so that employer sponsored insurers can screw with you all they want and never be exposed to more than what they should have paid in the first place. (FEHBA beneficiaries have the same problem.) They are even going to give the insurers the same protections from everyone in the exchange, stripping straight protections from millions. Insurers will have to "accept" pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions which they can tolerate because they have tens of millions of new policies to sell and administer.

Don't fall for "eliminating waste." They are going to let the insurers continue to soak massive administrative costs out of the well, perhaps streamlined a bit in the exchanges. They are going to let large corporations keep their tax benefits because, well, it's a sweet deal, and no other reason.

Don't fall too hard for "eliminating waste in Medicare." They are going to cut benefits without reducing quality as defined by people who do outcomes research. They will reduce available testing and procedures. The Secretary is instructed to undertake continuous cost control pilot project and make recommendations from the results. This includes, for example, capitation programs - yes - HMO model reimbursement. (Governments, by the way, have often tried and failed in capitation models - it's not as easy and such a gravy train for private insurers as you may think.)

This is what we have been given, and this we should support. Whether anyone desrves a "thank you" for it . . . I would say not. This is not Reform by any definition. It is a minor renovation with continued tinkering around the edges.


*fn. For example, let's say an employer sponsored insurer refuses to pay in full for an emergency transfer from one facility (where they have negotiated rates) to another higher level of care provider which does NOT have negotiated rates. On a whim they pay the negotiated rate, and the hospital bills you for the balance of the fantasy rate, to the tune of six figures. It happens, I promise you. Does the exchange save your ass? I see no mechanism by which it would. You go bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 11:02 PM

My priority right now is to get access to basic medical care. I care about the rest of it, but that's my priority.

I do think we'll need to keep fighting this battle, even after the initial legislation is passed, for the reasons outlined above.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 01:30 AM

McGrath: A wee problem with your post of 11 Sept., 7:50 PM: "I'ts not accurate to use the term, 'Yank bashers' of those who want to see the reforms backed by the president, and by a majority of Americans win the day."

The "wee" problem? Recent polls show that a considerable majority of Americans do not support Obama's program.

As a matter of fact, if anyone on this forum can outline what Obama's "program" is, I would be most appreciative if they would post it. He talks in generalities, not specifics. If ever there was a real "Wizard of Oz", it is Obama.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:18 AM

Here's an interesting article that debunks the myth of the Canadian system being inferior to what we have here in the US...


Exerpt:

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Opponents of overhauling U.S. health care argue that Canada shows what happens when government gets involved in medicine, saying the country is plagued by inferior treatment, rationing and months-long queues.

The allegations are wrong by almost every measure, according to research by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other independent studies published during the past five years. While delays do occur for non-emergency procedures, data indicate that Canada's system of universal health coverage provides care as good as in the U.S., at a cost 87 percent less for each person.

"There is an image of Canadians flooding across the border to get care," said Donald Berwick, a Harvard University health- policy specialist and pediatrician who heads the Boston-based nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement. "That's just not the case. The public in Canada is far more satisfied with the system than they are in the U.S. and health care is at least as good, with much more contained costs."

Canadians live two to three years longer than Americans and are as likely to survive heart attacks, childhood leukemia, and breast and cervical cancer, according to the OECD, the Paris- based coalition of 30 industrialized nations.

Deaths considered preventable through health care are less frequent in Canada than in the U.S., according to a January 2008 report in the journal Health Affairs. In the study by British researchers, Canada placed sixth among 19 countries surveyed, with 77 deaths for every 100,000 people. That compared with the last-place finish of the U.S., with 110 deaths.

Infant Mortality

The Canadian mortality rate from asthma is one quarter of the U.S.'s, and the infant mortality rate is 34 percent lower, OECD data show. People in Canada are also 21 percent more apt to survive five years after a liver transplant.

Yet the Canadian "bogeyman," as U.S. President Barack Obama called it at an Aug. 11 gathering in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, may have "all but defeated" the idea of a public option in the U.S., said Uwe Reinhardt, a health-care economist at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, introduced on Sept. 16 compromise health-care legislation that, unlike other House and Senate bills, omits a government-backed choice for the uninsured living in the U.S. who can"t afford private coverage.

Insurance Mandate

Private insurers, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession fear the "market power" of a public plan, Reinhardt said. They "deployed certain think tanks to find horror stories around the world that can be used to persuade Americans a public health plan in the U.S. would bring rationing."

Given that Congress is likely to pass a mandate to cover the uninsured, Americans forced to buy policies will be left with no alternative to coping with "double-digit rate increases" on commercial premiums, Reinhardt said.

"Both systems ration medical care," he said. "In Canada, they make people wait. In the U.S., we make people pay."

Fifty-four percent of chronically ill Americans reported skipping a test or treatment, neglecting to go to a doctor when sick, or failing to fill a prescription because of the cost, according to a 2008 survey by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that focuses on health care, and pollster Harris Interactive. That was more than twice the number in Canada, data from those New York-based groups showed.

Payment Worries

As the price of health care in the U.S. has risen three to four times faster than the rate of inflation, surveys show that Americans have become concerned they won't be able to pay medical bills. Forty-three percent of consumers in a June poll by the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor said they worried they might not be able to afford care, even with insurance.

"Canadians value fairness, and they cannot conceive of a system in which someone can't get health care," said Wendy Levinson, a Canadian who runs the department of medicine at the University of Toronto and worked in the U.S. from 1979 to 2001.

The U.S. spent $7,290 on health care for each person in 2007, according to the latest OECD data. Canada came in at $3,895. The U.S. also devoted the highest percentage of gross domestic product to health care, 16 percent, OECD numbers show. Canada's expenditure was 10.1 percent.

Canada's system consists of 10 provincial and three territorial nonprofit insurance plans that cover all citizens, including those with pre-existing conditions. It operates like Medicare, the U.S. program for the elderly and disabled. In Canada, the government uses taxpayer funds to pay claims by doctors, who mostly work in private practice or for a hospital and are paid fees for their services.

More here

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 09:22 AM

The Canadian health care system is quite simply the most popular thing the government has ever done in this country, and has massive public support among Canadians.

Doug, I think you are missing the point in going after Barack Obama all the time. He's not the one in charge. The private insurance companies and Big Pharma lobbyists are in charge. And it has always been that way. Your president does NOT run your country, he serves as a visible face, a front man to give the public the impression that they just elected someone to lead them...but they didn't. They elected a figurehead.

You're quite right that it's difficult for ordinary people to understand the arcane details of the health care plan that Obama's administration is trying to enact.

That's because it was planned that way from the getgo. The public isn't supposed to be able to understand it, because it is a plan intended to help the health insurance companies, not the public.

Obama is talking in generalities because that is his job. He is supposed to create a general sort of impression that sounds like something good, that's all. And he is a very, very good talker, a brilliantly steady and calm speechmaker, so he's presenting it in his usual articulate (but vague) fashion...just as he is supposed to do.

The main point is that the wealthy interests who control your government through lobbying and who rob your public daily no matter which one of your two phony political parties is in power are going to continue to do so, and you are not going to get what all the other developed countries in the world who have far better health systems than you do have in place already:

a single-payer, government run health care system for all your citizens that leaves NO ONE in the country without modern and easily affordable health care.

You've been had. And I expect you will continue to be had.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 09:31 AM

Here's a prediction (from a few days back) from Dennis Kucinich:

Dear Friends,

It is said one should not ask how sausage or laws are made. Are you concerned about a public option? Let me share with you some insight about health care legislation which may not be good for your health.

A lesson in politics. The Kucinich Prediction: Here's what's going to happen ...

1. House will make a big deal about keeping/putting a public option in HR3200 because it competes with insurance companies and will keep insurance rates low.

2. The White House will refer to the President's speech last week where he spoke favorably of the public option.

3. The Senate will kill the competitive public option in favor of non-competitive "co-ops". Senate leaders like Kent Conrad have said the votes to pass a public option were never there in the Senate.

4. The bill will come to a House-Senate Conference Committee without the public option.

5. House Democrats will be told to support the conference report on the legislation to support the President.

6. The bill will pass, not with a "public option" but with a private mandate requiring 30 million uninsured to buy private health insurance (if one doesn't already have it). If you are broke, you may get a subsidy. If you are not broke, you will get a fine if you do not purchase insurance.

This legislative sausage will be celebrated as a new breakthrough and will be packaged as health insurance reform. However, the bill may require a Surgeon General's warning label: Your Money or Your Life!

The bill that Congress passes may pale in comparison to the bill that millions of Americans will get every month/year for having or not having private health insurance.

It will take four years for the new legislation to go into effect. During that time we are going to build a constituency of millions in support of real health care, a constituency which will be recognized and a cause which is right and just: Health Care as a Civil Right.

Join our efforts. Sign the petition. Contribute. Insure a democratic future.

Thank you.

- Dennis

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 10:34 AM

DougR-
It seems to me that the only poll of any significance was held beck in November 0f 2008, and was pretty definitely in favor of health care reform (among other things)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 10:40 AM

LH,


"The bill that Congress passes may pale in comparison to the bill that millions of Americans will get every month/year for having or not having private health insurance. "


Which is what many conservatives are concerned with- that THIS specific plan is ineffective and will cost too much.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 10:46 AM

I don't doubt that for a moment, BB. I think the plan is intended to be ineffective, because its main purpose is to increase the profits of health insurance companies by forcing more people to buy private health insurance. Both the public AND the government will thus pay more money to the private health insurance industry...and that will mean higher "taxes" (both in the direct and the indirect sense).

Obama isn't the architect of any of this, though. He's just the puppet who dances on the strings, in my opinion. He's a very well-spoken puppet. In that respect he differs from George Bush radically, but I fear the end result will be quite similar. The rich and privileged will become richer and more privileged.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 12:39 PM

L.H.: I couldn't possibly disagree with you more when you write that the president of the U.S. is not in charge. Of course he/she is! That applies regardless of political party. Our country is NOT run by "special interests" liberals love to hate. We view those special interests as businesses that provide employment for Americans.

CarolC: I was wrong when I stated there was not a Medicare Trust Fund. I was not aware of one. I did know that there is a Social Security Trust Fund and also know, as I assume most Americans do, that Congresses (regardless of party)annually raid the fund to pay for the government's operating expenses.

If you read what you posted, you know why Obama will not take money from the fund to fund the health care legislation. It's broke.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 01:16 PM

Yes, and the fact that it's broke, ought to be incentive for people who rely on medicare for their health care needs to support either, A: medicare for all (which would put a lot more money into the trust fund and thus keep if viable for those already on it, or B: some other single payer plan.

Everyone is vulnerable. Just because someone has health care they like now doesn't mean they're going to have it a few years from now. Everyone is in the same boat - those on medicare could lose it if it goes down the tubes, and those with private insurance could be kicked off it or be priced out of the market, if we don't get real health care reform that takes control out of the hands of the health insurance industry and big pharma.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 01:49 PM

"A: medicare for all (which would put a lot more money into the trust fund and thus keep if viable for those already on it, "


You mean the fact that I am PRESENTLY paying a percentage of each paycheck for Medicare/medicaid ( like every other employed American) will now mean I pay how many times that to the fund?

How many more people will be covered? Then multiply the present deduction by that amount. And I trusted Obama when he said he would not raise taxes....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:01 PM

"Which is what many conservatives are concerned with- that THIS specific plan is ineffective and will cost too much. "

If, while the conservatives were in power all these years, they had put up a better way of ensuring that all American had good quality health care they could afford, and the Democrats had somehow managed to stop it going through, that might be credible. As it is the suggestion that it's just the details of these particular proposals that are the reason for opposing it is pretty implausible.

It'd be interesting to know whether the real reason is just that the proposals are being put forward by political opponents, or whether there actually is a settled determination to make sure that America should continue to be the only developed country which denies adequate health care to millions of its citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:08 PM

We could increase the amount of money people pay into medicare/medicaid and they would still pay less than what they are paying and what is being paid on their behalf to the insurance companies in the form of premiums, copays, and deductibles. In one of the threads on this discussion, one of the Canadian Mudcatters said he'd paid only about $20,000 into the Canadian health care system over his whole lifetime. $20,000 is only about two years worth of premiums (paid by both the employer and employee), copays, and deductibles paid in the US for each insured person.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:11 PM

It's a settled determination by the insurance companies to guarantee that they will be able to continue to hold a monopoly on health care delivery in the US and that they will be able to do whatever they want to those they insure. It's all about insurance industry profits. It is entirely driven by the insurance industry, who happen to have quite a few politicians securely in their pockets.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:13 PM

Correction: I phrased my words badly when I suggested that copays and deductible go to the insurance companies. But they do come out of the pockets of the insured.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 03:05 PM

CarolC,

You miss my point. Those PRESENTLY on Medicare pay premiums. IN ADDITION, ALL working Americans pay 1.45% of their pretax income to Medicare/Medicaid, to support the PRESENT population that is on those programs. In addition, states provide additional funding.

Now, when you increase the number ON those programs, you increase the amount that EACH working person will have to pay, regardless of whether they are in the program. You also increase the amount that each state has to provide ( which they will get by increasing their taxes).

Unless Obama is a liar, taxes ( ie, the 1.45% ) will NOT be increased.

So where does the money come from?

And how does covering MORE people without funding it increase the present fund?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 03:13 PM

I didn't miss the point. I addressed it. If people who are currently insured were included in the medicare program, they might end up paying more into medicare than they currently do, but they would be paying far less than is currently being spent on their health care by them and their employers. So increasing the number of people alone won't do it, but increasing the number of people and having everyone pay a slightly higher percentage of their income into the system would keep the system afloat, and would still be less than what they are paying and what is being spent on them now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 03:34 PM

And you missed my point, bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 04:10 PM

Sign the petition for the public option (and pass it on)...

http://americacantwait.com/

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 04:14 PM

Another advantage to having everyone included in medicare, is that people wouldn't be paying both medicare and insurance premiums, copays, and deductibles. They would only be paying the medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 08:13 PM

Here's a really great discussion about the different health care systems in the world. This guy says that medicare in the US was modeled (and named) after medicare in Canada by the Johnson administration. So our friend in this thread who has been badmouthing the Canadian health care system, and who gets their health care from medicare, is benefiting from, and has indicated satisfaction with, pretty much exactly the same kind of health care system as they have in Canada...

http://fora.tv/2009/09/14/TR_Reid_The_Healing_of_America#fullprogram

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 10:19 PM

Except that the poster in question currently gets their health care through medicare, and says they like the coverage they get. They aren't complaining about medicare, they're complaining about the health care system in Canada, so that one doesn't wash. And I fully expect the post I am now addressing to be deleted, so if this post looks disjointed, that's why.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 10:42 AM

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is threatening to take the health care debate in a direction that will most definitely kill it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 11:05 AM

He only wants to ensure health care in some manner for the CHILDREN of illegal immigrants, and you probably do, as well. He didn't exactly say he wants them to have insurance policies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 11:37 AM

They're going to get cared for in emergency rooms anyway, and the rest of us are going to have to pay for it anyway. And when that happens, we pay a lot more than we would have had to pay to let them get care along with everyone else before their problems become catastrophic. Also, if they are included in the same programs as everyone else, they will at least be paying into those programs. If they are excluded, they won't be paying into the programs, and we will still be footing their emergency room bills.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:08 PM

Some posters on this thread seem to believe, because their health care is provided by their government, it is free. Does that mean that in those countries there really IS a free lunch?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:12 PM

It's a hell of a lot less expensive in the counties that have universal care than it is here. We pay double the amount of money for health care in the United States than other developed countries do. So while it's not free, it's a hell of a lot cheaper in those countries than it is here, everyone is covered, and they get better results overall.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:47 PM

There seems to be a conservative notion that it's better to pay 100 dollars to a private entity than pay 10 dollars in taxes for the same services.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:58 PM

That's the efficiency of the marketplace. Dollars flow quickly upward.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 10:27 PM

I think it would make a great deal of sense to have public health coverage, but I can't see where anything that's been proposed so far nails down the details. Congress and the President need to agree on something to present to the American people.
             Max Baucus(sp?) presented his plan, and Sens. Rockerfeller and Menendez immediately came out against it. And they both sit on the same committee.
             How is anybody expected to make any sense out of this?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 11:06 PM

It sure won't be easy. I think the "Baucus plan" is America's Healthy Future Act here:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf

As described and discussed by the CBO here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf

Scheduled for mark up with a tidal wave of proposed amendments on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM

""You mean the fact that I am PRESENTLY paying a percentage of each paycheck for Medicare/medicaid ( like every other employed American) will now mean I pay how many times that to the fund?""




That's what stands in the way of healthcare for millions of Americans. The stupid, stubborn, refusal to learn the plain facts which are there for all to see.

"I've got mine, and I'm not paying a penny of my hard earned cash to support losers who haven't got the gumption to find a job with a medical plan as good as mine."

1. There really IS no such thing as a free lunch. Everything your government does is paid for with your taxes.

2. If you have a National health scheme which covers everybody free at point of use, you no longer need to pay a private insurance company massive premiums for a service which precludes payment for pre-existing conditions, and only pays a part of what you do incur in the way of treatment fees.

3. Because of 2. you will find that your total payout is less overall, and you will receive better service, because it ain't the doctors who say you must pay for your new hip if you had a football injury at college forty years ago.

4. If you are well off, and prefer to be ripped off by insurers, you will still be able to do so, and because they will be competing for your business with the National system, the premiums will be much lower.


Bottom line?......For every extra dollar you spend in tax, you will save much more in premiums, even if you still use private insurers for part of your care.

It's a no-brainer.....It's already working that way all over the Western Hemisphere.

Now, you may have company supplied care now, but can you really be sure where you will be a year from now?....Two years?....Ten years?

Of course not.

WHAT PRICE PEACE OF MIND for you, and those you care about?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 01:35 PM

Of course, one element of all of this is, some union health care programs have better coverage than the public option is intended to offer, so some union workers would be put in the position of having to pay premiums to get the increased coverage. That puts some Democrats in a pretty tough spot.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 01:38 PM

People who like their current programs would keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruc
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 02:05 PM

CarolC,

"having everyone pay a slightly higher percentage of their income into the system "

You mean increase the tax they pay.

Which makes Obama a LIAR. Can't have that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 02:15 PM

People who like their current employer provided insurance benefits would keep them if their employers choose to continue them in an unmodified form.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 02:31 PM

A surcharge on Cadillac plans to help subsidize the currently uninsured is offset by reduced government funding of care to the currently uninsured AND reduced cost-shifting to other private payors. Call it a tax or don't but you can't help ptovide health care or health insurance to your neighbors in need for free.

Some article, I think in WSJ, says the CBO cost projections for the Baucus proposal are more inclusive and accurate than the HR 3200 estimates, so that apples to apples it is probably considerably less expensive to the federal budget.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 04:10 PM

It doesn't make him a liar if he decreases their taxes in some other area, resulting in no net increase in their total taxes, which he has said he will do.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 08:51 PM

I think it's a waste of breath, Carol. They don't really give a good Goddam whether it's cheaper or not, and they don't give a damn about those who suffer. They only care about the possibility they might have to part with a little cash, and they aren't smart enough to see what they will save.

The days of the good neighbour in the US of A seem to have died.

All they are interested in is their own benefit, but if the day ever comes when they lose that nice comfortable job based cover, just listen to them howl for somebody to help THEN.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 09:10 PM

"The days of the good neighbour in the US of A seem to have died."


                In the "days of the good neighbor," you had some control over who your neighbor was, and whether they were legally in the country or not.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 11:54 PM

Nobody's ever had any control over who their neighbors were in this country except in the days of segregation, when White people knew they wouldn't have to live with Black people as their neighbors. But there's never been a way to know whether or not the recent immigrants living nearby were here legally or not.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:04 AM

Whether someone is legally in the country or not is completely irrelevant to whether they are a good neighbour or not. Of course if you think it is, you wouldn't be what I'd call a good neighbour, but that's a differemt matter.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:03 AM

I think having too many neighbors is what's led to all of this!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:26 AM

As I mentioned above, 45,000 people die each year because of lack of access to medical care. I found out that's one person every 13 minutes. It's also the equivalent of fifteen 9/11 events every year. We have spent trillions of dollars fighting wars supposedly because 9/11, but some people think we can't spend any money at home to keep people safe from dying from treatable illnesses. Such people are not entitled to call themselves "pro-life".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:29 AM

That should say, "45,000 people in the US die each year because of lack of access to medical care". I'm sure the numbers are far higher if one includes the rest of the third world.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 01:09 PM

As long as money exists, Doug, nothing will be free except the air you breathe...and people's advice. ;-)

No, universal health care such as is provided in Canada is not free...it's paid for by our taxes. However, we pay LESS tax per capita than Americans do for our health care, and we're ALL covered by it.

You pay MORE tax per capita than we do for government-guaranteed health coverage, many of you ALSO have to pay private health insurance companies big bucks on TOP of that, and many others are NOT covered at all.

And that's why you're way behind most of the developed world when it comes to health care.

Do you understand, Doug, that if 100,000 people all share in the support of each other's health care by paying an equal share through taxes...that ALL of them can afford it when a FEW of them actually need medical treatment? That's how the Canadian system works, and we can all easily afford our own share of the cost, BECAUSE we all take responsibility for EACH OTHER. We share the cost.

I pay less than $1,000 a year in my yearly taxes, Doug, to make my contribution to health care in Canada...and for that I get complete coverage by the Canadian system if I get sick and need medical help.

Match that.

No one ever said it was "free" here. We just said it was a fair and affordable system that leaves no citizen out in the cold when they are in need.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 01:43 PM

Clean air doesn't come free any more.

Ifvcourse, as with many other things, the people who dirty it for everyone don't have to pay the cost. I suppose you could call that a "free lunch".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:20 PM

FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax
         
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s' health care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage — carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing, but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," Obama added. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage."

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of prior medical history.

"If we're going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions, it makes sense," said economist Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "Otherwise people will come in the door the day they get sick." He sees no distinction between the requirement to get coverage and the fines themselves.

"The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in paying it, and the fact that it's administered through the tax system all make it look like a tax," Williams said. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:41 PM

If you are required by law to register your motor vehicle, and pay the registration fee, and if found not having done so incurs a fine (and you still have to register it) you could argue that the fine is a tax, or that the registration fee is a tax, but you would really be stretching the meaning of the word considerably.

A fine for non-compliance is not an income tax. It is not a sales tax. It may be taxing but for cry-i let's quit the semantic quibbles. If you have a better plan, say so.

If all you can do is come up with "Obama stinks" stuff instead of specific ideas for better management, save your ASCII.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:53 PM

sorry, no cookie on this machine.


Amos,


"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." "


So, it is OK for him to lie for a good resaon- But that is what you stated Bush should be impeached for.

I await your call to impeach Obama for his lies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 07:02 PM

Aren't Americans compelled by law to have motor insurance? What's the difference in principle? Is that a tax?

Or is that something bruce would like to see ended?

Of course my assumption there might be wrong, and in fact it might be that Americans doy not have to carry motor insurance. After all, that'd be no stupider than not having universal health cover...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:14 PM

** I ** have no problem with a president telling false statements for the good of the country- it is Amos who feels that presidents should be impeached for that. Except if he approves of them, of course. THEN it is ok.

I already pay for medical care for 110 million Americans, as does every working American. Medicare and Medicaid take 1.45% of each pre-tax dollar. So please let me know who is not already covered- the poor get Medicaid, the retired get Medicare. If they are working , they have income and can pay for it just like I do- most ( if not all) states have programns that already cover those who cannot get commercial insurance ( MHIP in MD.)

So please tell me why I should pay any more.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:33 PM

BB-
"So please tell me why I should pay any more. " I guess because they hate you, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 09:16 PM

14¢ out of ten dollars?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 09:40 PM

Holy crap you're right.

http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/anne.html

so triple it to 43 cents out of ten dollars and solve ALL of our problems. Wow. That's perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 09:51 PM

Some posters on this thread seem to believe, because their health care is provided by their government, it is free. Does that mean that in those countries there really IS a free lunch?

DougR

Doug: Are you actually as much of an imbecile as posting this sort of drivel makes you appear?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 10:44 PM

There are many people who are not covered, and who cannot get coverage. JtS and I are two of them. We have pre-existing conditions (one of which is our age), and we are self-employed. So no insurance company is willing to insure us for an amount that we can afford, and we don't have access to employer based coverage. I feel quite confident that the amount we would have to pay is many thousands of dollars per year more than what the person in this thread who is questioning the existence of people who can't get coverage is paying for their insurance. Our state does not have any program that helps people who can't get coverage. Most states do not have any such programs.

And there are millions of other people who are in exactly the same situation as we are. 45,000 of them are dying every year for lack of access to medical care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 10:51 PM

One further point... the person in this thread who is questioning the existence of people who can't get coverage is already paying a lot of money in taxes to pay medical bills of those who can't get coverage. Such people often end up in emergency rooms with catastrophic problems and are unable to pay. It's the taxpayers who pay for those very expensive emergency room services. If those same people had access to good care before their conditions become serious, the taxpayers would pay a lot less in taxes for their care. So that would help everyone's taxes go down.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 10:55 PM

Where we stand in a nutshell:

Fast forward: Healthcare reform
From Public Affairs | 21 September 2009

BERKELEY —As President Barack Obama appeared on five Sunday morning news shows to discuss his healthcare plan, the NewsCenter queried several members of the Berkeley faculty for their insights into the debate. We asked about their hopes for a comprehensive healthcare plan, the compromises they expect to see, and their predictions for what Congress will decide.

Stephen Shortell, dean of the School of Public Health and professor of health policy and management
Any comprehensive healthcare plan that is meaningful must be affordable, accessible, and sustainable. What I think is going to happen is that by the end of the year, the President and Congress will be able to claim victory on something that they can label "healthcare reform." But, it will probably be far short of what is needed.

I certainly expect that there will be expanded coverage, that claims will no longer be rejected because of pre-existing conditions, that insurance coverage will be mandated for all and that insurance exchanges will be established at state and regional levels. There is actually considerable agreement on both sides of the aisle on those things. The survival of the public plan option is much less certain.

Not having some form of competition to private insurers will be disappointing. It would also be disappointing if the plan that passes fails to enact significant reforms to the payment system to restructure the way healthcare is delivered by hospitals, clinicians, and other providers. Health professionals should be given incentives and rewards based on quality and outcomes of care and not on the quantity of care delivered. The focus should be on rewarding cost-effective care and on investing in nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco-cessation programs

Melissa Rodgers, associate director, Berkeley Center on Health, Economic & Family Security
My greatest hope is that Congressional Democrats will take the long view and seize the historic opportunity they have to pave the way for a society in which no one lacks access to necessary healthcare. To this end, I hope Congress will pass a bill that includes a strong public plan: a health-insurance program that, like Medicare, is provided by the government.

I would be greatly disappointed by a compromise that fails to include a public option. Private insurance companies have demonstrated their commitment to their bottom line over the needs of the public; and they have also failed to rein in costs. I am concerned that Democrats will abandon the public plan. I am also concerned that employer contribution requirements will be watered down to a fee that does not create a real incentive for employers to cover their workers. Other probable compromises that concern me are cuts — in order to limit the bill's price tag — to subsidies for working families and the near-elderly, such that meaningful coverage will remain unaffordable to many. Finally, it disappoints me, but does not surprise me, that the proposals exclude undocumented immigrants.

I do predict that Congress will pass, and President Obama will sign, a comprehensive overhaul of the health-care system with a mandate that all individuals have health insurance, an "exchange" through which individuals and small businesses will be able to purchase insurance coverage, subsidies to make that coverage more affordable, private insurance market reforms, and Medicaid expansions.

Ken Jacobs, labor-policy specialist, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment
We have the greatest opportunity for meaningful health reform since the passage of Medicare. The proposals in congress are based on shared risk and shared responsibility. Both of those elements must be maintained in the final bill. Shared risk means creating a common risk pool for small businesses and individuals who do not have coverage on the job. Insurers would have to compete on price and quality, not cherry picking the healthy and dropping those who are not. A robust public option, as one of the choices in the exchange, is vital to help keep costs down and increase competition.

Shared risk will not work without shared responsibility. In the House and Senate HELP proposals, individuals are required to purchase coverage and employers to provide coverage that meets a certain minimum standard or to pay into the exchange. If the employer requirement is removed, the cost of reform to the federal government will increase considerably. One area that has not received the attention it deserves is the issue of affordability for consumers. We cannot require people to purchase coverage they cannot afford. The House and HELP bills would provide subsidies for low- and middle-income families if the cost of coverage exceeds a certain percent of their income. Senate Finance is proposing to reduce the subsidies to bring costs down. That would be a major mistake; it risks generating backlash in the middle class against reform. I predict Congress will get it done. The cost of inaction is too great.

William H. Dow, Henry J. Kaiser Associate Professor of Health Economics
A truly bipartisan health-care bill now looks quite unlikely, so the challenge at this point is for the Democrats to converge on a bill they can all compromise on, while bringing along at least one Republican vote in the Senate to avoid filibuster.

Forging a compromise will be no small feat, as Democrats are still quite divided on important issues such as the extent of subsidies for low-income individuals, and hence the overall cost of the bill, as well as the extent to which those costs are to be paid for through Medicare cuts and different types of new taxes. This is in addition to such contentious issues as the "public option." Many of these disagreements are based on disputes for which we have very imperfect analysis to guide us, given the difficulty of projecting the effects of different reform elements.
The real horse-trading will likely not happen until late night sessions sometime in November, as Congress works to adjourn. But there are already some signs of flexibility emerging, in part led by President Obama's concessions during his speech to Congress. The President has signaled significant new flexibility on issues such as the public option, taxation of high-value health benefits, and malpractice reform. It will take an all-out effort by the White House, though, to convince and coerce Congress to pass some compromise bill

The exact nature of the eventual compromise is hard to predict, but the general outlines have become much clearer. Democrats appear largely agreed that reform should focus foremost on reducing the number of uninsured. The most likely compromise bill would include an expansion of Medicaid to perhaps 133% of the poverty line; insurance- premium subsidies for other low/middle income persons; a mandate that all individuals buy health insurance; and some provisions incentivizing employers to offer insurance. The trick will be to find a middle ground whereby subsidies are large enough that lower- income individuals could afford to purchase insurance, hence making the individual mandate credible, but not so large that more fiscally conservative Democrats would oppose the bill as too expensive. The current Congressional proposals offer somewhat different combinations of subsidies and costs, but any of these would likely reduce the number of uninsured Americans by tens of millions.

The complementary aim of slowing the growth of health-care costs, however, appears unlikely to be tackled this year. Although this is a primary goal of Republicans, and an important secondary goal for Democrats, there are not many effective tools available for achieving it. The current Congressional bills do include numerous provisions designed to reduce cost growth, many of which may be useful for making the health care system somewhat more efficient; as a whole though, they are unlikely to bend the cost curve of projected future spending significantly. In studying those health-care systems that have more successfully slowed cost growth in recent decades, it appears that the key tools have been cost controls imposed by governments. While there are some examples of cost controls being used in the U.S., such as in the Veteran's Administration system or in Maryland's government panel that limits health care provider reimbursement rates in the state, the fears of government ineptitude are salient enough that such approaches are not currently politically feasible as part of broader health reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 11:02 PM

BB - "Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase."

Hell, BB, it's a lot worse than a tax increase! It's a blatantly obvious gift to a bunch of big profit-making health insurance companies to force the public to become their customers whether the public is willing to or not. It's graft and corruption posing as a health insurance plan.

And that is what Dennis Kucinich has been saying all along, that what the government is doing is they are playing ball with the private health insurance companies and giving THEM help, not helping the general public.

And guess why that is? Because lobbying by private industry controls your government, that's why.

You should be getting upset about that, not drifing into a petty side issue about whether to call this graft a "tax" or not.

It would be a tax if the money was going to the government...but it looks like most of the money is going to go to the private health insurers to me.

I do not for a moment believe that either the Democratic or the Republican parties are going to come to the aid of the general public in the USA, because the public is not whom they serve. They just pretend to do that. They really serve the great Oligarchy of private corporate interests who feed on your society like a bunch of bloated vultures.

All this bipartisan squabbling between Democrats and Republicans (and their naive supporters) misses the real point: that your government has been hijacked long ago and is now just a compliant tool of corporate business interests...no matter WHO wins the damned election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 11:42 PM

I just noticed something BB: That article is saying the mandate to get coverage for yourself is itself a "tax." They're not even talking about the surcharges on others as the "tax" in question.

How the hell can we be bitching about telling the free riders to get their hands out of the public purse and incur some expenses of their own to get coverage?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:48 AM

""In the "days of the good neighbor," you had some control over who your neighbor was, and whether they were legally in the country or not.""

Well, I wouldn't let it worry you Rig.

Thanks to the neighbourly attitude of people like you, 45,000 of those neighbours are dying each year, so if you can delay change long enough, you'll be rid of them all.

Of course 90% of them will be perfectly legal citizens, down on their luck, but Hey!...Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, can you?

I think, on the whole, I'd prefer the illegals for neighbours. They've probably got rather more of the milk of human kindness.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 04:11 PM

"I'd prefer the illegals for neighbours. They've probably got rather more of the milk of human kindness."

               Yes, the get it through the WIC program. I get stuck behind them all the time at the super market.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 04:39 PM

I never forget what Benito Juarez once said, Rig:

"Poor Mexico. So far from God and so near the United States."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 05:30 PM

It's off-topic, but just for the record:

Mexico is one of ten wealthiest countries in the world.

It has oil, gold, silver, and other natural resources which should make it a world leader.

Mexico has mountains, fertile valleys, rivers and a amazing amount of coastline. Lots of warm water harbors and fishing.

Proximity to the US is not the problem. Their society with "elites" at the top and "peons" at the bottom. That is the problem. They have no real "middle class" and people seldom move up in social position.

They have also been attempting to increase their power by a population explosion. Mexico had but 18 million people in 1920. There are now about 160 million Mexicans, 40 million of whom are in the United States, some legally and some illegally.

The American people have no clear plan how the help Mexico and nobody on either side of the border would cooperate enough to make any plan work.

So, here we are.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 05:39 PM

They have also been attempting to increase their power by a population explosion.

Not just off topic, off planet...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 05:59 PM

You mean they're NOT fucking their way to world supremacy, McGrath??

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:04 PM

You are quite right, pdq, that the Mexicans have mostly suffered because of dictatorial and corrupt rule by a tiny and rich elite over a population of peons.

However, they have also suffered much from their proximity to the USA, because the USA has waged some wars of convenience with the Mexicans, primarily for the purpose of stealing some of their best northern lands.

(The Texan war of independence was sort of an indirect case of that...but not directly attributable to actions by the US government itself...rather actions by American emigres to the area, and those actions were in some respects quite justified, I would say.)

The other wars between the USA and Mexico, however, were very much to the benefit of the USA and were due to American government policy. They resulted in Mexico losing what is now California and the American Southwest...plus being invaded a couple of times.

Mexicans know that and they have not forgotten it.

On the other hand, they have certainly also benefited from trade with the USA over the years.

As you can see...I am, as usual, quite willing to look at both sides of the picture. It's seldom a case of either side being "all good" or "all bad" when it comes to such situations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:05 PM

"'They have also been attempting to increase their power by a population explosion.'"

"Not just off topic, off planet..."


                But true! Very very true.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:28 PM

I think that the powers running Mexico would be delighted to reduce the national birthrate if they could figure out how to...

You usually have a proportionately higher birthrate in lower income populations. This is true all over the world, not just in Mexico. When people become more affluent, the birthrate declines.

One place though where the birthrate has been drastically reduced through direct government policy is in China where people have been strongly encouraged to have single child families. It seems to be creating some social problems now for the Chinese, because the children from single child families are not as accustomed to sharing and getting along with other people as children who have grown up with brothers and sisters.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:43 PM

Little Hawk,

You only need to adjust your way of thinking a little and you will be nearer the Truth.

Think of the northern 40% of what is now Mexico as Indian Territory. No different than the rest of North America, Canada included.

These Indian tribes were historically bullied by the true Mexicans who were native to the plateau area around Mexico City.

Many tribes including the Kikapoo (Texas), the Papago (Arizona) and the Apache were divided when the border between the US and Mexico was finalized (see Gadsden Purchase).

The Spanish were bad enough, bringing disease and forcing the conversion to Roman Catholicism, but the Meijas were intolerable. The California and Texas Indians joined the Anglos and most Spanish in rejecting the claims that the new (1821) Mexican independant government made. The despute lasted from 1821- 1853 when a treaty was signed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:16 PM

The Mexican elite has benefited from trade with the US, perhaps, but the poor, the ones who are coming to the US in such great numbers, definitely have been hurt by it. Many of them are farmers who are unable to compete with the cheap, subsidized agricultural products with which US is flooding the Mexican market. That's why they're coming here instead of staying home with their families.

I find it ironic when Bush supporters criticize countries like Mexico for having no middle class, considering how determined the Bush administration was to eliminate the middle class in this country (and how much damage they were successful in doing to the middle class here). And also how resistant they are to supporting any measures that would help the middle class in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:19 PM

And how did those tribes that sided with the US against the Spanish fare under the US government after it took over their lands?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:35 PM

If you are asking "how did the divided tribes fair on the US side vs the Mexican side" the answer is obvious. I know people who have worked on both sides and the Mexicans treat their independant tribes like shit.

Otherwise, your question makes no sense. Many Californicos (ethnic Spanish) joined the Indians and Anglos and sent the enthnic Mexicans home. The numbers involved in the Bear Flag Republic are tiny: about 5000 Spanish, 700 Mexicans (mostly grunt labor) and perhaps as little as 350 Anglos. The Indians, with a population of 100,000, had the rightful claim to the area which was to become California.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:39 PM

And the US government treated those tribes well after it took over the lands that had been previously held by the Spanish?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 08:34 PM

""You usually have a proportionately higher birthrate in lower income populations. This is true all over the world, not just in Mexico. When people become more affluent, the birthrate declines.""

Unless of course the country in question is hag ridden by Catholic clergy, and denied the means of effective birth control by an omnipotent cleric who has no idea what effect unbridled breeding can have on a population deprived of the food, water, and industry necessary to an exploding population.

That's the true reason for this population increase, much as it may discomfit the "Christians", so called, of the USA.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:20 PM

Well, Don, we finally agree on something.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:31 AM

The Senate Finance Committee was barely an hour into its consideration of health-care reform on Tuesday morning, but Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) already knew where he stood.

"I do not support a government takeover of the health-care system," he railed. The proposal "confiscates more money from the taxpayers," he went on. "It tramples on American freedom and liberties."

After this vigorous display of open-mindedness, Bunning was spent. About an hour later, spectators noticed that the senator, who had been resting his chin in his hand, had fallen fast asleep. As giggles rippled through the chamber, an aide shook Bunning, who woke with a start.

Bunning's nap was a fitting comment on how he and his Republican colleagues had received the efforts of the committee's chairman, Max Baucus (D-Mont.), to craft a bipartisan compromise on the mammoth legislation. Baucus made major concessions to Republicans: He dropped the "public option" for a government-run health plan; he tossed aside the mandate that employers provide health coverage; he cut the bill's cost and made sure it was all funded by revenue from within the health-care system; he stipulated that government funds would not go for abortion or to illegal immigrants; and he included efforts to curtail medical malpractice awards.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 01:09 AM

Beardedbruce: I doubt that you watched ALL of the Sunday talk show programs Obama appeared on, but I wonder if you might have seen the montage shown of those shows (I believer on Fox News). If you did, did you notice how much his nose grew from start to finish?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 01:46 AM

He hasn't matched Richard Nixon in that regard yet, Doug! (grin)

pdq - Yes, I am well aware of the depredations of the Aztecs on the other Indians in what is now Mexico, the depredations of the Spanish on all the Indians they encountered, and the depredations of the Mexicans on the Indians in Mexico. Vicious business. However, it's sort of a separate issue from what I was originally talking about which was the wars between Mexico and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 02:48 AM

In defense of the insurance industry


LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 05:49 AM

""Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse.""

I must admit that I foresee problems with this concept.

Let's say CarolC and JtS suddenly find they miraculously have sufficient cash for the premium (monumentally unlikely in itself), and like good little Americans, they do as they've been told,and approach an insurance company for cover.

Company replies "You both have pre-existing conditions, P*SS OFF!"

So do all the other companies they try.

They still have no cover........WHO PAYS THE FINE?

I'd really like to know.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 08:34 AM

My understanding of the various proposals put forward is, one of the caveats precludes refusal to insure, or dropping someone, because of a pre-existing condition.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 09:40 AM

And rate setting will be subject to controls as well. And subsidies are provided according to a formula based on income. These are some of the reasons the exchanges will take four or more years to fully implement.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 10:13 AM

There have been a number of posts on here telling of premiums of $1000+ dollars per month, for private medical care, and the people who are paying (or having their employers pay for them) those premiums are complaining about the tax they might have to pay to support a national system.

In the UK, with less than half the population in full time employment, when I was paying income tax and National Insurance contributions, I was paying out about £35 ($60-70 approx) per month National insurance. My income tax payments varied between £120 and £170 ($200-300) per month.

Every man, woman, and child in the country gets medical care without payment at point of need. The only things I paid for were prescriptions, teeth, and specs.

I'm retired now, and paying no tax or insurance. I still get the same treatment, except now my prescriptions are free also, and I get free eye tests.

It seems to me ridiculous that a whole nation would want to go on paying rip-off premiums to insurers who spend most of thir time looking for ways to stiff patients out of their rights under the contracts.

I paid, all through my working life, in tax AND insurance, about a quarter of what a working American pays for insurance alone. And that doesn't even cover all his treatment, and often, if they can find a get-out clause, doesn't cover any.

Those corporate guys sure have you all by the short and curlies. Even P.T.Barnum didn't have a clue just HOW MANY suckers there are in the US.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 10:46 AM

In 2008, the average premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance were $392 for individual coverage and $1057 for family coverage. The average premium being paid for an individually purchased health insurance plan was $159 ($1,908 over 12 months) for an individual and $369 ($4,428 over 12 months) for a family.

2009 rates were up 5%

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:00 AM

I don't think the Baucus plan has rate controls. That's one of the problems I have with that plan. I really hope that one doesn't go through in its current version (without a public option). That could be financially ruinous for us, depending on how they do the subsidies. I hate that that one is such a gift to the insurance companies. That one is bad also because it forces the insured to pay a lot of out of pocket expenses on top of the premiums. If that plan goes through as is, the number of bankruptcies related to health care costs is going to rise.


I don't think those averages for individually purchased insurance can possibly be accurate. It costs a lot more to purchase insurance individually than it does to be insured through an employer.

The last year we had insurance, we paid about $12,000 for the year. It would cost us a lot more now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:01 AM

Side by side comparison of:

(1) Baucus' Senate Finance Committee America's Healthy Future Act of 2009;

(2) The Senate HELP Committee Affordable Health Choices Act; and,

(3) The House Tri-Committee America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:09 AM

I was wondering about rate controls, Carol.

I probably got those avergae premium rates from Kaiser Family Foundation materials. googlable question.

Out of pocket expenses are key to cost control. They have to be careful on low income folk there, though, as you say. I think all of the proposals have annual caps on out of pocket. If everybody gets free free free all the time the cost consciousness has to be shifted away from the physicians and patients and to you know who.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:17 AM

Reasonable out of pocket may help cost control, but what they are proposing is not reasonable. It's just a gift to the insurance companies.

If we have to pay the amount I heard being thrown around about the Baucus bill, the premiums alone will break us. Having out of pocket expenses on top of that will insure that we will not be any more able to afford medical care than we are right now. So on top of not being able to get medical care, we will also be bankrupt from the premiums.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:20 AM

Also, high out of pocket expenses will cause costs to increase rather than decrease, because they will be a disincentive for people to get preventative care, and they won't get care until their health problems are a lot more expensive to treat.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:39 AM

survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that, once again, health insurance premiums rose faster last year than either wages or general inflation. A study by the Treasury Department found that almost half of all Americans below Medicare age have gone without insurance at some point over the last decade.

The Kaiser study, conducted jointly with the Health Research and Education Trust, an affiliate of the American Hospital Association, found that the average premium for a family policy offered at work rose above $13,300 in 2009 — up from $5,800 in 1999. The average employer paid more than $9,800 of that, while the workers contributed more than $3,500. The workers were also hit with larger co-payments and deductibles, while their policies often offered fewer benefits.

The premium increase this year was a relatively modest 5 percent, far below the 13 percent rate in two previous years. But that still far outpaced a 3.1 percent growth in wages and a small decrease in inflation. Absent meaningful reform, worse is sure to come.

Kaiser estimates that, if increases revert to the average of the last 10 years, health insurance premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,800, which it calls "a very scary number." More immediately, a fifth of the employers surveyed said they are very likely to increase the amount that employees pay for premiums next year.

Meanwhile, the Treasury Department's study highlighted how vulnerable Americans are to losing their coverage.

It found that, between 1997 and 2006, 48 percent of nonelderly Americans went without health insurance for at least one month, 41 percent lacked coverage for at least six months and 36 percent were uncovered for a year or more. That happened during a decade of strong economic growth. The number of uninsured is likely to be higher over the next decade, the study warns.

The argument for reform seems clear. Americans without insurance need guaranteed access to coverage. Those with insurance need a guarantee that they will not be dropped by their insurers and will be able to buy an affordable policy if their employers decide to drop coverage. And ways must be found to slow the rise in health care costs and ease the burden of paying for insurance. (NYT Ed.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:39 AM

If I understand Baucus (I don't), your peak exposure to premiums is 10% of income. If I understand HR 3200 (I don't), your peak exposure to premiums is 12% of income. I guess those are both subject to ongoing negotiations especially on subsidy questions. Out of pocket is on top of that?

Page 6 of that side by side is on subsidies.

For Baucus it says:
For those with incomes between 100-150% FPL, the cost-sharing
subsidies will result in coverage for 90% of
the benefit costs of the plan. For those with
incomes between 150-200%, the cost-sharing
subsidies will result in coverage for 80% of the
benefit costs of the plan.

(I don't know what it does for 200% - %400 FPL - nothing?)

For HR 3200 it says:

The premium credits will be based on the average cost of
the three lowest cost basic health plans in the
area and will be set on a sliding scale such that
the premium contributions are limited to the
following percentages of income for specified
income tiers:

133-150% FPL: 1.5 - 3% of income
150-200% FPL: 3 – 5.5% of income
200-250% FPL: 5.5 - 8% of income
250-300% FPL: 8 - 10% of income
300-350% FPL: 10 - 11% of income
350-400% FPL: 11 - 12% of income

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:52 AM

P.S. 200% Federal Poverty Level for family of four in 2009 is $44,100.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/Downloads/POV09Combo.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM

Oops - The subsidies for HR 3200 continue on to page 7 of the side-by-side:

Provide affordability cost-sharing credits to
eligible individuals and families with incomes
up to 400% FPL. The cost-sharing credits
reduce the cost-sharing amounts and annual
cost-sharing limits and have the effect of
increasing the actuarial value of the basic
benefit plan to the following percentages of the
full value of the plan for the specified income
tier:
133-150% FPL: 97%
150-200% FPL: 93%
200-250% FPL: 85%
250-300% FPL: 78%
300-350% FPL: 72%
350-400% FPL: 70%

-----

So it is a lot stronger on the subsidies, but that's where they are hammering on Baucus this week.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:11 PM

Were more than 200% above poverty, but not enough above that 10% of our income won't be a really big hit. We're barely making it on what we're living on now. Having to pay big out of pocket expenses will put actually getting medical care out of our reach.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:11 PM

Out of pockets stay very low on low-income, but not for the wealthy, which is good.

It becomes clearer and clearer why WSJ likes Baucus so much more than HR 3200.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:20 PM

The Baucus plan was written by the insurance companies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:30 PM

Insurance companies win on both. You'd think they would prefer guaranteed federal subsidies over problem payers. It's probably rating mandates, or maybe physician pay cuts, that would move them towards Baucus.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:35 PM

The insurance companies do better under Baucus, because that plan precludes the possibility of any public option. At least HR 3200 allows for the possibility of one.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 12:06 AM

Too tired to read the whole thread - sorry. I received a letter the other day from the doctor who did my colonoscopy about three years ago -- telling me it was time for another one and please call and set it up.
Well, I cried when I had to have it and found it invasive and gross and didn't want another one.
I called my doctor and asked if I needed a colonoscopy -- was put on hold - had to wait a while but two days later, doctor's minion called me back -- says no colonoscop necessary for 3 years....mine was fine and there is no risk for three years......WHAT DO COLONOSCOPIES COST???????? How many people just book another one and don't question it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 12:19 AM

I think a more pertinent question for the purpose of this thread might be, how much money are we spending on people who don't get colonoscopies until their illness is so advanced, it costs a lot more money to treat than it would have had they gotten the procedure done sooner, and for how many of those people is the reason they didn't get it done sooner is because they had no insurance?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 12:28 AM

I was thinking along the same lines. Americans have a preference for overtreatment, naturally. (That's why we have, e.g., far better cancer detection and survival than the UK, despite all the hubris.) But that's expensive. So much being paid for the majority while not steering adequate funds to the underserved. It's not right, and it's not sensible policy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 12:34 AM

I totally agree - if I did not have excellent health insurance I would not have had the first colonoscopy -- it just pisses me off that a large number of people probably got that letter and booked the appointment....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 09:11 AM

And an even larger number didn't get any letter.......AND DIED!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 02:40 PM

This is a most serious subject. But a brief aside for a bit of levity if I may:

A few friends and I were sitting around eating some Chinese take-out. One woman opened a fortune cookie, read the message, and burst out laughing. "It says 'You have an inner beauty.' That's what they told me after my colonoscopy!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 05:52 PM

I'd call that dark humor!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:53 AM

The Health-Care Ego Trip
   
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, September 28, 2009

What's driving the great health debate of 2009 is not a popular clamor for universal insurance. "Many Americans are balking again at the prospect of health care reform," writes pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. A new Wall Street Journal poll found 41 percent of respondents opposed to President Obama's proposals and 39 percent in favor (the rest were undecided). The underlying driver is politicians' psychological quest for glory.

"My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history," Chairman Max Baucus implored last week as the Senate Finance Committee opened consideration of his bill. Politicians, in their most self-important moments, see themselves as instruments of national destiny. They yearn to be remembered as the architects and agents of great social and economic transformations. They want to be at the signing ceremony; they want a pen.

Ordinary Americans are rightly suspicious of this exercise in collective ego gratification, which has gripped Obama and many of his congressional allies. Even when the goals are worthy -- as they are here -- the temptation to exaggerate, simplify and sugarcoat often proves irresistible. Baucus's promotion of his handiwork is a case in point.

One study "found that every year in America, lack of health coverage leads to 45,000 deaths," he told the committee. "No one should die because they cannot afford health care. This bill would fix that."

There was more. "These reforms would give Americans real savings," Baucus said. The Congressional Budget Office "tells us that the [insurance] rating reforms and exchanges in our proposal would significantly lower premiums in the individual market." As well, the bill wouldn't increase the budget deficit and "starts reducing the deficit within 10 years."

If only all this were irrefutable. But Baucus's claims are shaky. It is questionable whether more insurance would save 45,000 lives a year. Unfortunately, just having insurance doesn't automatically improve people's health. Sometimes more medical care doesn't really help. Sometimes people don't go to doctors when they should or follow instructions (take medicine, alter lifestyles). Indeed, many people don't even sign up for insurance to which they're entitled. An Urban Institute study estimated that 10.9 million people eligible for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program in 2007 didn't enroll.

The 45,000 figure cited by Baucus is itself an unreliable statistical construct built on many assumptions. It's based on a study of 9,004 people ages 17 to 64 who were examined between 1988 and 1994. By 2000, 351 had died; of these, 60 were uninsured. The crude death rates among the insured (3 percent of whom died) and uninsured (3.3 percent) were within the statistical margin of error. After adjustments for age, income and other factors, the authors concluded that being uninsured raises the risk of death by 40 percent. They then extrapolated this to the entire population by two techniques, one producing an estimate of 35,327 premature deaths and another of 44,789.

This whole elaborate statistical edifice rests on a flimsy factual foundation. The point is not to deny that the uninsured are more vulnerable (they are) or that extra insurance wouldn't help (it would). The point is that estimating how much is extremely difficult. Advocates exaggerate the benefits. Remember: Today's uninsured do receive care.

What about lower insurance premiums? Here's the actual CBO analysis: "Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market -- again with other factors held equal -- because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for health care." The CBO added that it couldn't predict premiums because so many factors might influence them.

It's true, as Baucus says, that the CBO estimated that new taxes and Medicare savings would cover the costs of his original bill. But many Medicare "savings" are probably phony. Congress is likely to reverse them, as in the past. Put in that category about $200 billion in "savings" over 10 years from lower reimbursement rates for doctors (under the "sustainable growth rate" formula). Congress has repeatedly prevented those cuts from occurring. A separate $180 billion in "savings" from lower reimbursement for hospitals and other providers are similarly suspect. Together, these items provide about half the plan's financing.

Americans worried about this legislation may not know its details or may even be misinformed. Still, their skepticism is justified. Grandiose rhetoric obscures unflattering reality. The proposals don't force the major structural changes in the delivery system that might curb uncontrolled health spending, which is the central problem. The bills that Congress is considering might marginally improve Americans' health but would worsen the federal budget outlook and squeeze other public and private spending. Whatever bragging rights result will quickly erode in the face of the health system's continuing problems.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:58 AM

Yeah, it's just my ego that makes me want to have access to health care. Not wanting to die a premature death has nothing to do with it.

Robert J. Samuelson is a tit.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 12:44 PM

But Carol, Samuelson was born with a caul- he can accurately predict what Congress will do !

Ita a bit disingenuous to task Democrats for "unreliable statistical construct" and "flimsy factual construction" in the face of the unrelenting flood of Republican verbal dihorrhea with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Samuelsin has been a schill for the privitisation of Social Security for quite a while.

For a better look at where Samuelson is coming from CLICK HERE

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 12:57 PM

As usual, those who cannot argue the facts attack the people who bring them up.

The egos involved are those of the present administration, and Congress. I agree that they would rather see you dead than actually reform the medical care syetm in a way that would work, but not give them the power of life or death over you.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 01:02 PM

Since I'm the one who doesn't have access to health care, there really isn't anything the Democrats in Congress could do to make my situation any worse (except for passing the Baucus plan with no public option). If they pass a bill with a public option, they will be saving my life and JtS' life. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit what their motive would be for doing that, ego, or anything else, as long as they do it. And if they do, I will be grateful.

Really, a person without insurance (and even one with insurance) would have to be a total idiot to buy the Republican propaganda on the subject of health care reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 02:18 PM

CarolC,
If you read my previous posts, you know how much I thoroughly agree with you! Well said.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 02:26 PM

Thanks! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 02:28 PM

Years ago, I got a fortune cookie that said, "Psychics will put search dogs on the trail to your cadaver.

I never understood how it might come to fruition - until now possibly.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:26 PM

As usual, those who cannot argue the facts attack the people who bring them up.

Not at all BeeBee-

1.I'm simply putting the man in context

and

2. Best way to refute the man is with his own words.

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:30 PM

I guess I'm proud to be a member of the only major country that doesn't think it can afford to keep its citizens healthy. Sorta makes one proud......I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:52 AM

"Since I'm the one who doesn't have access to health care, there really isn't anything the Democrats in Congress could do to make my situation any worse (except for passing the Baucus plan with no public option)."

Unless you get the fine for not having healthcare. That is what the present bills will do- charge you for not being able to afford the policy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 10:37 AM

Is that fine tax deductable?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:03 AM

Read THIS
it might just save your ass.

From that well-known radical leftist communist front organisation, the AARP.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:47 AM

That's why I said unless they pass the Baucus bill without the public option. The Baucus bill as it is could be very bad for us (depending on the subsidies). We definitely couldn't afford it without a sizable subsidy, or without the public option. They need to pass a bill that isn't just a massive handout to the insurance companies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:24 AM

Way to go, Greggie, I clicked on your blue clicky but the server was no where to be found.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:31 AM

The clicky works for me. It's an AARP bulletin correcting the lies that the insurance industry has been peddling with the help of the complicit corporate media.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:31 AM

Greggie: I was referring to the Blue Clicky about the Samuelson article. As to AARP, it's my understanding that it has lost 60,000 plus members as a result of it's stand on government health care.

After today's vote in the Senate Finance Committee, the "Public Option" is a dead duck anyway. Interesting that the Democrats joined the Republicans to kill it. Where are the socialists when you REALLY need them?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:47 AM

That's ok. The Samuelson article is crap anyway.

So far, I have refused to join AARP because I felt that they were working more for insurance and drug companies than for their members. I just might have to join now that they are finally standing up for their members.

The public option is not dead yet. It was only voted down in one committee. There are still several votes left on whether or not to have the public option. But don't let facts get in the way of a good fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 12:22 PM

Click Here Douggie. Sorry for the typo.

Don't know why not being able to access the article would trouble you, tho- you've never thought it necessary to actually read & comprehend something before spouting off in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 02:18 PM

Doug, there are many services that you undoubtedly use and take for granted which, by your lights, are socialistic. If your house catches fire, you can call your local fire department and they will come and put the fire out. No charge to you. Paid for by taxes. If someone is breaking into your house, you can call the local police department and they will send the police. No charge to you. Paid for by taxes. The street in front of your house was built and maintained through taxes. If you want to drive from Phoenix to Los Angeles and back, you can do so on interstate highways, built and paid for by taxes. One could easily build a substantial list of the things you (and all of us) use that are government mandated and administered and are paid for in part or in full by taxes.

This is often the most efficient and least expensive way of doing these things.

In fact, all of what most people would consider "essential services" are government mandated and administered and paid for by the taxpayers. You may not use some of these facilities and services that your taxes pay for. You may have never needed the fire department or the police department and you may have no reason or desire to visit Los Angeles;   but—these facilities and services are there should you need them or want to make use of them.

Good health care is an essential service. So essential that you could die without swift medical treatment. Or that you could suffer grievously for years from some condition that could by cured or at least alleviated with proper medical treatment. These desperately needed services are often denied to people unless they are willing to go so deeply into debt that they will never be able to dig themselves out. Literally, "your money or your life!"

Or they must pay an egregiously large share of their incomes—if, indeed, they have incomes, as many people in these bad economic times do not—for health insurance. And even then, you may not be covered. People on the inside of insurance companies (who have recently grown a conscience) have reported much about the obscene profits the companies are making, and how the companies' clients are often denied life saving services because the company gropes around to come up with some excuse not to pay, such as a "pre-existing condition."

This is just downright criminal. In no other modern, wealthy, industrialized, supposedly civilized country is this barbarism allowed to happen.

And people who are wealthy enough to have insurance coverage, or, as in your case, Doug, are covered by Medicare and the VA (both government run agencies, paid for by taxes) cavalierly, thoughtlessly, and selfishly object to expanding this essential service to those who are in need of it because you see it as "socialism."

For shame, Doug! Shame on all of you who are so callous that you would deny your fellow citizens this much needed program because you are so deathly afraid of "socialism," when you already benefit greatly by services that are just as "socialistic" as national health service would be in this country.

An examination of world health statistics, such thing as life expectancy and infant mortality, the United States is way behind, even behind some "third world" countries.

Reagan's "City on the Hill?" That other countries look up to as an example?

I don't think so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 02:32 PM

By the way, Doug, I'm not a socialist. But I'm not afraid of the word, either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 02:34 PM

Thank you, Don. If only you'd applied as a speechwriter a year ago.



(Small point: I recall, from long ago, and can't look it up just now, reading that the mortality and infant survival stats are greatly skewed because the US saves much smaller newborns, and uses a different measure for survival stats.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 02:57 PM

I had an interesting discussion with someone recently who didn't believe in the government running any programs other than the ones specifically mentioned in the Constitution (roads, postal service, military) because that would be socialism. I told him that being mentioned in the Constitution did not make them not socialism. It just made the Constitution a socialist document.

I pointed out that the reason the people who wrote the Constitution put those in there, is because they determined that it would be more efficient for the government to handle those programs rather than leaving it to the market to do it. Which means that our founding fathers understood that socialism (even though they didn't have the word "socialism" back then) is more efficient than the market under some circumstances. In the case of the services mentioned in the Constitution, they are services that are crucial to the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. Health care is another one of those services that is crucial to the wellbeing of the country and its citizens, and is less efficient when controlled by the market.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 05:13 PM

Where does your Constitution say anything against socialism?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 05:26 PM

I don't think the term "socialism" was even coined yet when the Constitution was written, and I don't think any one had defined the concept yet, either. So the Constitution really couldn't have said anything against it. But since the Constitution includes things that are socialist in nature, we can say that it supports socialism as a concept.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:19 PM

Too many of our less enlightened ones confuse socialism with communism and do a McCarthy-type knee-jerk when something—no matter how beneficial—strikes them as socialistic. Of course, sliding right by the fact that they undoubtedly got a free education in a public school supported by the taxpayers.

There is nothing incompatible about democracy and socialism. In fact, the two are highly compatible. Far more compatible than democracy and capitalism, wherein the major decisions are made by corporate heads, either directly, or by bribing Congress (it's called "lobbying," and for some peculiar reason, it's legal).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:25 PM

Telling people to go get some insurance so we can stop socializing their losses is pretty far from socialism. Try putting the health care providers on government payrolls and then you'd have something to talk about.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:28 PM

Under our present system, I would be more worried about fascism than socialism.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
                                                                                                                                          —Benito Mussolini

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 08:01 PM

A further parallel with fascism is the teabagger and 9/12 movements that are being used by the corporatocracy to try to kill health care reform. This is what Trotsky had to say about Fascism...

"(In Italy) it is a plebeian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers".

Which sure looks like the corporate directed and financed populist movements we see today protesting against health care reform. Like this, for instance...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/12/armey-teapartypatriots/

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 08:30 PM

There is nothing incompatible between democracyb and communism for that matter - in fact a viable communist society cannot exist and flourish in the absence of democracy, as has been demonstrated over the past couple of generations.

Capitalism, on the other hand can manage pretty well in totalitarian societies, as is being demonstrated currently in China. Rather better than it can in countries that are democratic (though perhaps "democratish" might be a better word for the word for countries where a majority of voters can be frustrated by a powerful and wealthy minority).

We shouldn't allow ourselves to be fooled by labels.
..........................

But this is drifting away from the issue of health care reform - a more immediate issue which does not have to wait upon reshaping the financial and social system within the United States.

Capitalist societies, socialist societies, communist societies, democratic societies, authotarian societies, totalitarian societies - all of these around the world in one way or another have been able to manage to organise things so that reasonable health care is available to all. The only exception among wealthy or moderately wealthy countries is the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 09:19 PM

Actually, a discussion of socialism does not drift away from the subject of health care reform because one of the big objections that is being promoted as a reason to not adopt the kind of health care reform that we need is because some people consider it to be "socialist" and they also consider socialism to be the work of the devil. We can't just ignore that mindset, since it is being used so effectively to block meaningful health care reform. It has to be addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:16 AM

You make a good point, Carol. I've never considered socialism to be the work of the devil--if, in fact there was such a thing as a devil.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:27 AM

If people who currently have private health insurance think this couldn't happen to them, they should think again...

http://www.tampabay.com/video/?bcpid=2441023001&bctid=42043731001

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 01:18 PM

Just watched the video that Carol posted right above.

I should probably take a bit of time to cool down before posting anything, but what pops into my mind are two phrases:

Hell is not hot enough!

and

The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 01:35 PM

What's the betting that there will be no comment whatsoever on that video from any of our members who are against health care reform?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 09:23 PM

I'm sure Doug won't be able to help posting something pithy and germaine like "the sky is falling" or something equally clever.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 10:24 PM

Well, in this country, if you happen to have cancer, heart disease, or any one of a number of other diseases—and no health insurance—the sky bloody well IS falling!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 10:44 PM

Same with people who have catastrophic illnesses, and insurance that refuses to cover their illnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 01:51 AM

looks like the Baucus snowball has the most inertia rolling into the bottom of the ravine, towards the fence, and still picking up mass.
Wahington Post

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 08:15 AM

Great post Carol.

I saw this today and while not striclty relevant it is within the same context.

California Uber Alles

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 12:20 PM

California's problems can be summed up in one word illegal-immigration.
                The piece says California is losing population, but the population they're losing are the people who would be most able to fix things if they'd stayed. They did nothing about run away illegal-immigration for so long, they can no longer aford to pay the bills for the poor, many of whom should not even be there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 12:54 PM

Wrong word. The two words you really want are "Ronald Reagan".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 07:39 PM

Well, I wouldn't really argue with that either, Greg. He did a lot of damage too.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 09:38 PM

Carol you were right the variability in premiums according to location is enormous:

"[P]remiums on the individual insurance market vary widely by state, according to research by America's Health Insurance Plans. In Massachusetts, the average annual premium for family coverage was $16,897 in 2007. In Wisconsin, it was $3,087."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113443100

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 10:05 PM

Wow. That's a hell of a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 08:48 AM

here's something that may be of interest ...

the doctor isn't in

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 09:30 AM

So it's not a doctor shortage, it's a billing number shortage. How tragic. Seems like the New Brunswick government needs to be fired.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 12:08 PM

Carol .... " Seems like the New Brunswick government needs to be fired"

I agree 100%

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 10:14 PM

New Brunswick?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 10:40 PM

don't worry about it .... no one knows where it is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 10:48 PM

I've traveled all around New Brunswick. It's a beautiful place. (And my grandfather's from there.) They still need to fire the government, though.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 10:55 PM

Thank you Carol ... actually it is beautiful ... and most definately we desperatly need to fire the government here ... probably the worst provincial government in all of Canada.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 02:39 PM

The Wyden-Bennett bill is a sell out to the private insurance companies. It's requirement to buy insurance through these privateers is outrageous.

There are models for government backed insurance programs combined with private interests that work for European countries and why not here?

Any intrusion by private insurance companies into health care reform is specious. They've proved their alliances politically and economically.

A "Single Payer" with a liason with private companies would work here effectively.

What's needed is a partial de-privatization of insurance and government regulation. Wyden-Bennett is a "paper tiger". I no longer trust the insurance industry's spokespeople
for legitimate data projections. Single Payer would do the job.

If Single Payer is off the table, it's only because the politicians are beholden to the lobbyists from the insurance companies.   Pure and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 03:04 PM

I certainly would agree that Ronald Reagan did not further the liberal cause very much during his eight years in office. I suppose that's why he is so unpopular with liberals.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 03:31 PM

Would you rather have the government regulate health insurance companies? Or the health insurance companies regulate the government, as they would very much like to do?

CLICKY

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 06:05 PM

Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
October 6, 2009   

As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.

Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.

While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.

more

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 06:15 PM

I'm definitely in favor of posting all proposed and passed legislation online.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 06:35 PM

I can agree with you on that, CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:23 PM

What's the betting that there will be no comment whatsoever on that video from any of our members who are against health care reform?(01 Oct 09 - 01:35 PM )

I was right, wasn't I?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:25 PM

Yup.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:27 PM

** I ** am not against health care reform- just THIS particular secret, under the table attempt by the left to force the entire country into their vision of it.

And at the Getaway I had better things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:05 PM

Frank you're not keeping up. Wyden Bennett is long dead. DOA. The insurance companies won anyway. The left is going to pretend they won. The Republicans are going to pretend they won. They're cooking up meat loaf as we speak, with lobbyist-approved ingredients, and we're all going to eat it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:18 PM

I'm going to have to start looking hard for a way to get me and JtS up to Canada to live. I don't see how we'll be able to survive here in the US for very long.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:55 PM

Hmmm.
Wonder what DougR's ten-word pithy comment on McG's link will be.
Maybe "horsepucky?"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 11:20 PM

What has JtS got a warrant out?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 11:23 PM

I wish I understood that post about the warrant. I know it has to be a joke, but I'm not getting it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 09:58 AM

for his arrest. In Canada. I just meant can't you go up any old time?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 01:22 PM

No. We would need to have a way to support ourselves there. JtS could go with no means of support, but he couldn't take me with him unless he could support me or I could support myself. We're not in a position to do that right now. Our means of support is here in the US. But maybe we need to start working on finding a way to change that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 05:59 PM

Let's face it--any government action that forces you to buy a product without controlling the price of that product is simply a matter of pimping for supplier of that product. Worse, in fact---a pimp doesn't force to to buy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 06:09 PM

Wouldn't it be something if the health care reform, instead of helping the uninsured (and even the insured) in the US, just ended up creating a whole bunch of health care refugees who fled the country because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 08:51 PM

When you speak of reform, it has to be done large.
When the Insurance Mafia owns the country, then U.S.
citizens have to be shaken out of their sleep.

The U.S. is nine years into a failed war which has not
made our country more safe. It's supporting fraudulent
elections and warlords. The U.S. is revisiting
the fiasco in Vietnam.

How can you expect a public that has been so drugged
by the media, the lobbyists, bankers and military to resolve
the issue of health care?

Obama is throwing the American people crumbs by a
watered-down bill using a "public option" and the citizens
are allowing this to happen as they also allow their tax dollars to be spent on a futile nine year fiasco. This, while the insurance racketeers are paying for elections.

The educational system in the U.S. is being corrupted
by re-writing text books by the likes of Bill Bennett
and Neil Bush in a privatized manner gutting the
ideals of Thomas Jefferson for a public education.

If the American people were truly responsible, they wouldn't be supporting unscrupulous insurance companies, banking institutions, military hoodwinking
by bloody generals, gutting public education but would
be out in the streets demanding accountability.

For this, though, you would have to have democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 12:44 AM

Nice rant, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Azizi
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 04:22 PM

"Two major powerbrokers on the left...are encouraging a Senate strategy in which the leadership would revoke chairmanships and other leadership positions from any Democrat who sides with a Republican filibuster to block a vote on health reform."

Since then, thousands of progressives have signed the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's newpetition to Senate Leader Harry Reid saying:

"Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care." Sign here.

http://boldprogressives.org/majorityvote/p-dkos

What does this proposal mean? In general, it means Democrats need to be Democrats!

Republicans are planning to use the Senate "filibuster" procedure to block a vote on health care reform. But if all Senate Democrats stick together, a clean up-or-down vote will take place.

This means 51 votes -- not "60 votes" -- would be needed to pass reform. And winning a public health insurance option would be very likely.

Together, we can make that happen.

Which senators would feel pressure from this proposal? All the senators who are siding with the insurance companies and opposing the public option: Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) are some examples.

Let's send a clear message: It's not OK for Democratic senators to join with Republicans to block a vote on health care. Period.

Please sign the petition."

* more than 20,000

from Thousands Pressure Harry Reid After Maddow's Report
by AdamGreen
Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:49:25 AM PDT

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:42 PM

Isn't there something subversive about passing legislation by a simple majority? Should investigate that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:46 PM

Great precedent for when the Republicans get back in the majority, right?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 10:51 PM

They already figured that one out---the GOP invoked reconciliation on each of W's tax cuts for the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 11:16 PM

So, if the Repubs did it it MUST be OK, right???



I'll remember you implied that, after the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 11:18 PM

Tell us, then. Is it ok for the Republicans to do it or not? Was it ok when they did it during the GW Bush administration?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 12:52 AM

GuestTIA: I watched the video. What are you looking for? Want me to write that I could care less? That's obviously what you expect.

The person depicted in the video is just one of thousands of people like her who have terrible problems and seemingly no way of solving them. Do I have sympathy for her? Of course! Only a heartless, non-caring individual would not.

However, the Bill that will soon be voted on in the congress will demolish my current health care program. Do you feel badly about that? I suspect you could care less.

The majority of the funding for the proposed program will come from cuts from Medicare Advantage which provides my coverage. The Democrats plan is going to adversely affect millions of elderly people who have paid into Social Security during their entire working years so that the current administration can ensure election in the next presidential campaign. And I assume you are one of those who believe that us old timers should celebrate.

The Democrats will get some sort of health care Bill passed, but it's not going to do what Obama promised. Nothing new about that though. His promises are "horse pucky" anyway. It won't provide coverage to everybody but it might be enough to get the Democrats re-elected. But on the other hand ...it might not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 09:25 AM

the Bill that will soon be voted on in the congress will demolish my current health care program...

Sigh.

No

it

will

not.

(No

facts

need

apply.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 12:56 PM

CarolC,

No, in my opinion it was wrong then, and wrong now.


But who here thinks it is wrong NOW besides me? Only when Bush does something is it wrong- when Obama or the Democrats do the same thing I hear only cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 01:08 PM

The average person cheers automatically whenever his home team scores a goal, BB...regardless of how the goal was scored. He groans when the opposing team scores a goal, and he looks for ways to call it "cheating" and disallow the goal if he can find any possible way to do it.

That's true in hockey and it's true in politics.

And that is why there's so much hypocrisy found among sports fans and partisan minds.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 01:12 PM

BB-
I think that the threat of filibuster to block legislation is wrong, no matter who makes that threat. An insistence of a 60% vote to pass anythung is a sure guarantee of nothing being passed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 01:20 PM

Perhaps, dick. But it might eventually encourage politicians to start seeking workable compromises with one another rather than fighting with each other like two gangs of schoolboys on a vacant lot.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 01:32 PM

So, if more than 40% feel a bill is bad, it should still be passed?


And you will accept that when the Republicans get back in the majority next election???

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 01:37 PM

". . . the Bill that will soon be voted on in the congress will demolish my current health care program."

Not so, Doug. You're spending too much time listening to the flood of disinformation spewed forth by the Fox News bunch.

What is it you keep saying about "The sky is falling?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 02:31 PM

Don: I suspect you get most of your news from MSNBC and CNN, New York Times or some other liberal medias outlet, so it is understandable why you are not aware that the Baucus Bill will eviscerate Medicare Advantage. No way can congress cut Medicare's budget by $404 billion without adversely affecting benefits.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 03:53 PM

Doug, I get my news from much wider sources than the ones you mention, including overseas sources (i.e. the health care systems other advanced countries have and how well they work, then compare them with our own "system" or lack thereof). I understand that you believe any "news source" to the left of Bill O'Reilly is a propaganda organ for a socialist state, but be that as it may. . . .

I'm not in favor of the Baucus bill. It's deeply flawed. In fact, this country will not have a decent national health care system until we get the health insurance companies completely out of it. Most of the plans offered so far are trying to keep the insurance companies at the table, and that's like trying to set up a lean and mean military by letting defense contractors dictate what the military has to have.

The goal of the American health care system as it now stands is not the health of the country's citizens, it's the profit of the health insurance companies. That's why it's so ridiculously expensive and inefficient, and why only the wealthy can afford to get sick.

The only sub-systems this country has that work anywhere near well and with any measure of efficiency are the government run ones, like Medicare. But even they pale compared to the systems that some countries have.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 04:06 PM

DougR,
Believe it or not, I care deeply about oldsters. Very nearly am one myself. And, I do appreciate that you are contributing to this discussion. But you have been misinformed. There are people intentionally trying to scare you, and it is working.

You are arguing against your very own principles, and you don't realize it. Paul Krugman said it very well last week:

snip

"Now, it's understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush's attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party's traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

***Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare's creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.***

But the Obama administration's plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?"

snip

***emphasis by TIA***

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 07:36 PM

TIA: You offer as proof of the seriousness of your argument, Paul Krugman? That is as ludicrous as me providing you Rush Limbaugh as my voucher!

The GOP hasn't really been invited to the "table" to try to find a reasonable compromise plan for overhauling health care. The Democrats won big in the 2008 election and are acting as stupidly as did the GOP when they replaced the Democrats in both houses of Congress in the mid-1990's. GOP members have offered suggestions for improvement of the current system: allowing citizens to purchase insurance across state lines which would create greater competition among the insurance companies is one of them, but the Democrats wouldn't hear of it. Tort reform? Perish the thought. Fix Medicare problems and stop the waste in that program and Medicaid before completely turning the current system upside down, but no, the Democrats wouldn't listen.

So now they are going to be passing a Bill with perhaps one Republican voting with them. They will tout it as a bi-partisan bill because Senator Snow, who really is a Democrat anyway, voted with them. And will health care be made available to ALL Americans as a result of this Bill? Nope, it won't.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 07:55 PM

The Democrats have bent over backwards trying to accommodate the wishes of Republicans to the point of making it unacceptable to a lot of the Democratic base, but the Republicans won't vote for any bill except one that the Republicans write themselves. They're not looking for compromise. They want everything entirely their way (as always).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 10:09 PM

By the way, Doug:   for the record, when it comes to being concerned about health care for older folks -- I was 78 my last birthday.

Can you match that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 08:31 AM

DougR-

You prove Krugman's point when you simply dismiss his point based on politics. You and your ilk have abandoned reason, principle, and patriotism to embrace an irrational tribalism. Republican=good, all else=bad. I feel very sorry for you and yours, but you piss me off with the way you have poisoned our (admittedly flawed to begin with) system of government.

Who told you that Republicans have "not been invited to the table"? That is a bald, thoroughly demonstrable lie. But your tribal leaders told you that, and you meekly follow and believe.

What are your principles? Can you state them?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:55 AM

Doug abandoned reason LONG before the current health care dabate.

Better not to engage him- its like debating with a Holocaust denier; just tends to legitimize the idiocy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 07:11 PM

TIA: One of my policies is not to argue with rude people. (Greg F. excepted).

Don: I am one year up on you. I'll be 80 come March, 2010.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:53 PM

If we're in a competition for oldest age credentials here, then I'm at a severe disadvantage. I'm only 61! Barely out of diapers at this point.... ;-D

Doug, the plans that are being seriously looked at in your Congress are not the plans you need, because they have been drawn up by the private health insurance companies...and they are the very people who are already ripping you off and denying your populace the equal and fair universal health system you need.

I get total medical coverage for everything except dental care in Canada, Doug, and it costs me less than $1,000/year in income taxes. So does every other Canadian get that same level of service, and it's generally very good service too. The public here massively supports our universal single-payer health coverage, because we have direct experience of it. You don't. Your population is largely ignorant of what they have been denied, they are living on mythology, and your media and political parties (both of them) are trying very hard to keep them that way so that the health insurance industry can continue to grow fat off American society like a giant vulture gorging on roadkill.

The fact that you apparently believe the propaganda you hear is disturbing, but it just goes to show that if lies are repeated often enough by any mass media, then most people will believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 03:42 PM

"The person depicted in the video is just one of thousands of people like her who have terrible problems and seemingly no way of solving them.

But that would not be the case for this lady in any other country in the world that wasn't on the breadline. That is not something for any American to be proud of, or satisfied with, or shrug off as if it were inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: toadfrog
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 03:57 PM

For the record, my age is 71.
I read a very relevant article in the Wall Street Journal last week, on medical care in Pennsylvania (by Thomas Burton). The State began collecting and publishing data on readmission rates, infection rates, and the like of Pennsylvania hospitals. Employers and unions who chose only the best-performing hospitals substantially reduced the cost of care. Hershey was able to reduce costs by 50%. Needless to say, the bad-performing hospitals forcefully insisted that the studies were misleading and unneeded.

Insurance carriers refuse to turn over information on cost of care, but Hershey had enough clout to compare cost of care to performance on the services it purchased. It concluded that the correlation between price and quality of hospital care is zero.

The moral is that the market system is completely worthless in giving people good health care, because the providers will not disclose any of the information needed to make a choice (unless the government makes them disclose it, and that would be "socialism.")

Two or three years ago, I spent about ten days in a hospital. I was impressed. I had an individual room, the nurses were very nice, and there was a choice of channels on TV. All things considered, the food was astonishingly good. And a nice woman came around and solicited my opinion on the menu. But pleased as I was with all these things, they made me a little uneasy, because I suspected that somehow they were emphasizing the wrong things. Now I'm quite sure they were.

Hospitals have every incentive to provide the best possible hotel services, because it attracts an upscale paying clientele. The only incentive to keep the infection rate down is the possibility of a lawsuit for medical malpractice. So much for the market system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 06:08 PM

But it is not anywhere close to a market system now. That's one part of where this entire debate has been disingenuously presented. People get their health insurance from their employer, with very little options to choose from. People worry about their out of pocket change, and little else. Employers pick the plans for reasons of their own. Plan insurers pick the providers for reasons of their own. No one who really would care has any reason to pay attention to quality and cost relationships. Wyden Bennett would have changed all that, drastically. We weren't allowed to discuss it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 08:36 PM

Heric: But not everyone is employed. There are a lot of retirees here in the U.S.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:36 PM

I don't mean disingenuous by the detractors, I mean by the Democrats with Republican acquiesence, since neither of them will face down the lobbyists and tell the truth, even from the Presidential podium. I happen to agree with you that benefit reductions to Medicare will come under any of the three major proposals. (I just think that that's (a) a good thing, and (b) inevitable with or without these proposals.)

(I also think they should have left Medicare out of it. If they wanted added complexity they should have addressed the reasons why employer provided insurance costs SO much more than privately purchased insurance, and how they are going to account for the enormous regional variability in premiums.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:09 PM

It should be pointed out here that employer based insurance doesn't necessarily cost less for the insured. In fact, it usually costs a lot more. If it didn't, more people who are currently unable to afford insurance would be able to afford it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:13 PM

From the California Nurses Association website:

First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

Establishing a national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study released today.

www.calnurses.org

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 02:34 AM

Stand up for a public health care option...

http://countdowntohealthcare.com/

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 12:56 PM

Only a public option can provide the desired safety net without huge holes. That was supposed to have been the starting point in all of this.

(Insurers can not pay out funds they are not legally required to pay. It's illegal. "Hold insurers accountable" is so much nonsense.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 04:26 PM

Well, Carol C., you are at least a step closer to your goal now that a majority of the Senate Finance Committee voted aye on the Baucus Bill.

It has a long way to go yet though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 05:36 PM

The Baucus bill is not my goal. I don't support the Baucus bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 05:54 PM

Doug doesn't seem to get that for some reason, Carol...

I wouldn't support the Baucus Bill either, if I was an American. I would support what Dennis Kucinich has proposed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 05:56 PM

I think the Democrats thought they had to get something out of committee, and that they intend to worm a public option into the bill through amendments from the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 06:57 PM

The Democrats have to pass something, even gas, and call it a win.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:09 PM

They pass gas on a regular basis. That's what makes the US Senate such an unpleasant place.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:15 PM

Well, at least something is out of Committee, thanks to the intrepid Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe.

It's hard to believe that other Republicans are willing to sit this one out.

Someone ought to cancel their health insurance for the pre-existing condition that they have been registered as Republicans! But that would be wrong...

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:01 PM

I don't "do" YouTube but perhaps others would like to hear what Clinton's Secretary of Labor and current friend and advisor to Barack Obama has to say...

                                                                     about the elderly

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:13 PM

Please show some evidence that he is an advisor to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:25 PM

Carol C: At long last we agree on something. I don't like the Baucus Bill either.

Riginslinger is right. The Democrats are going to include the public option in the Bill the Democrat leadership is throwing together as I write.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:46 PM

If we get a public option, that will be a very good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:28 AM

It could be if they include stringent tort reform and include measures that public money would never be used to cover illegal aliens.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 01:00 PM

Illegal alien.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 01:09 PM

That's not an illegal alien! It's an interplanetary ambassador.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 02:00 PM

Riginslingers's King Charles's Head once agaiin...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:29 PM

Riginslinger: I would not expect the Democrat Bill that will soon be available for the president's signature to include any meaningful tort reform, neither will it likely bar non-citizens from receiving health care.

Trial lawyers are among the largest campaign contributors to Democrat candidate political campaigns. Can't upset them! Neither will the Bill bar non-citizens from participating in the new health care program. The Democrats want their vote! Heck, if babies could vote they probably would even bar abortions from being eligible for payment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:53 PM

Doug, I have some questions and comments about your post.

1. Why are you leaving the suffic "ic" off the word Democratic (as in the Democratic Party)?

2. "neither will it likely bar non-citizens from receiving health care" - Under what conditions? Any civilized country in the world will treat a foreign visitor who is injured in, say, a traffic accident or an assault or who has a heart attack or any other such emergency. And the bills are sorted out afterward. Other than that, what are you referring to and why is it a problem if a foreign resident is obliged to pay for medical treatment? My father, for example, fell ill once while visiting Florida....got treatment...and was presented with a very expensive bill. He paid it (with much grumbling...he could have got the same treatment free if he'd been lucky enough to be home in Canada when it happened).

3. The Democrats, like the Republicans, want the votes and support of big lobbyists. That includes trial lawyers, I assume, but what's more important in the case of the health care issue is...it includes the health insurance companies and Big Pharma. I think that both the Democrats and Republicans will bend over for those guys any time they are asked to, don't you?

4. "if babies could vote they probably would even bar abortions from being eligible for payment."

No doubt. But they can't. Personally, I'm waiting for the day that dogs, chickens, and monkeys get the vote. If they did, it might raise the overall I.Q. of your electorate a point or two.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:01 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:06 PM

"Any civilized country in the world will treat a foreign visitor who is injured in, say, a traffic accident or an assault or who has a heart attack or any other such emergency."

             Aha, I knew somebody would bite on that.

             I've come up with a plan. Of course the medical professionals have to treat injured people, but the US doesn't have to let them on the healthcare plan.

             All you have to do is treat them in the emergency rooms like they're getting treated now. That costs a fortune, but then you have to go after them, run them to ground, sue them, send credit hounds after them, force them into bankruptcy. Then they can't rent a house or an apartment or get the power and gas turned on.

             I know. I went through all of that when Ronald-pig-fuckin'-Reagan got elected.

             But you don't stop there, force them to change their identity and then go after them for identity theft. That makes them felons, so you go after them as felons--promote that sheriff from Arizona to take care of them--and all the time you let them know. If they wan't to avoid all that misery, all they have to do is to go back where they came from.

             It will be a lot easier to do this once the health care bill is passed, because everybody else will have insurance. The only ones who won't will be the illegals.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:42 PM

Ye gods!

I have heard from many sources, including personal friends, that when they were traveling in Europe and got sick or needed to see a doctor for some reason, one of the bigger surprises was that there was no charge. In fact, the hospital or clinic or whatever was surprised that they expected to have to pay for health care. Rick Steves, the travel writer (with a series of television programs on how to travel inexpensively and really see a country) has commented on this phenomenon a number of times.

I'd really like to see the United States become as civilized as most of the other industrialized countries in the world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:25 PM

Sorry DougR, but it needs to be said, even if it is "rude".
DougR says what he says because that is what they say on Fox News.
I know because I watch it, and then I hear it repeated by DougR (and by my Father-in-law whom I love but he makes my head explode).

DougR - other than Fox News, please give just one source for the claim that non-citizens might be included.

And then please tell us the relative amounts that trial lawyers contribute to Democrats and Republicans.

And then, just try to say "Democratic Party". Or I will have to refer to the "Repubic Party".

In Fox We Trust.....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 12:27 PM

I'd really like to see the United States become as civilized as most of the other industrialized countries in the world.

I'm sure you are in lots of ways. It's just that health seems to be a bit of a blind spot.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:42 PM

Doug has always enjoyed operating in a fact-free environment. He ain't gonna change. Deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:07 AM

Here's the latest word on health care reform from Dennis Kucinich:

"Dear Friends,

More about why we desperately need health care for all:

This past weekend, I visited a festival at a church in a working class area of my district. These events are opportunities for people from the community to gather, to eat ethnic foods, listen to music and enjoy each other's company; before the brisk, brooding Cleveland winter begins to set in. When I walked through the doors, I felt as though I had stepped back in time, to when I was a child growing up in the inner city of Cleveland where I witnessed people struggling every day to make ends meet. From this early experience I have learned to recognize poverty, the clothes it wears and the physical appearance it presents.

What I saw in the church were humble people whose shoes were well worn and whose clothes were in need of repair. I also saw people struggling with various stages of ill health, with obvious physical difficulties. I know what poverty feels like and I felt it here and I was surprised. What made this visit memorable was that it occurred in a suburban community which had formerly been known for its solid middle class housing.

Meanwhile about 400 miles away, in Washington, DC, the insurance companies have wielded enormous influence to knock a public option out of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill and we still struggle to keep the public option alive in the House. A decision is due soon from the full Senate. Will they actually pass a bill which requires that Americans buy private insurance? The House continues to try to determine the shape and content of our legislation.

The political system is failing the American people. Money for Wall Street, not for Main Street. Money for War, not for Peace. Money to move jobs out of America, not to create new jobs here. Money for insurance companies, but what about the people?

While 47 million uninsured wait for an answer, and another 50 million underinsured stand by, Americans are losing their jobs, their homes, their health care and their retirement security. How long can people wait for help?

I am asking you to continue to join me in the push to have a state single payer amendment in the health care bill. Whatever passes the Congress will be insufficient to meet the broad based health care needs of the American people, which is why it is important to give the states the option to move toward single payer. Call your representative now and demand that the Kucinich state single payer amendment remain in the bill.

In my community, and many others across our nation, the level of human suffering from an economy "gone bad" is rising to shocking levels. A recent US Census report states that in this decade the number of northeastern Ohioans who live fractionally above the poverty line has risen 10% - to a quarter of a million people.

But I do not see cold statistics. I see real people. I see the poverty lining their faces. I see their eyes asking: Why?

Sincerely,

Dennis "

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 06:55 AM

Yes, Kucinich makes a compeling case. I wonder where he is on tort reform?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:58 PM

From the Washington Post:

"The Democrats' fickle-and-dime health strategy

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 21, 2009

"Iwill not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future -- period," President Obama told Congress in a health-care address last month.

Well, that depends on what the meaning of "plan" is.

Senate Democrats wanted to protect doctors from scheduled cuts in Medicare payments over the next 10 years, but there was a problem: Doing so would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to the federal deficit, making mincemeat of Obama's promise. So Democrats hatched a novel scheme: They would pass the legislation separately, so the $250 billion cost wouldn't be part of the main reform "plan," thereby allowing the president to claim that that bill wouldn't increase the deficit.

Republicans, who had been losing traction in their effort to fight a health-care overhaul, could hardly believe the gift the majority had given them.

"I have never witnessed something more sinister!" an agitated Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) declared on the Senate floor Tuesday morning. Citing a report that the "doc fix," as the $250 billion measure is called, was created to buy the American Medical Association's support for the main health-care bill, Corker accused the AMA of prostitution. "We all know that the selling of one's body is one of the oldest professions in the world," Corker said. "The AMA is engaged in basically selling the support of its body."

While Corker was on the Senate floor suggesting that the Democrats were johns paying for sex, Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the second-ranking Senate Republican, preferred a reptilian metaphor. "They thought they were getting a problem off the table, and instead they grabbed a rattlesnake by the tail and don't know how to let go," he told reporters as he headed to a lunch with his GOP colleagues in the Capitol.

Around the corner, John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the man in charge of the Senate Republicans' 2010 campaign, opted for numismatic imagery. "This, of course, violates one of the president's first principles, when he said he won't sign any health-care bill that adds one dime to the deficit," he reminded reporters. "This adds a lot of dimes to the deficit." Two and a half trillion, in fact.

The sponsor of the doc fix, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), seemed unconcerned that the fix had put the party in one. "It really is about honest budgeting," she said at a news conference Tuesday morning. On one side of her stood the AMA president. On the other side was a poster framed by a flag. One of its bullet points: "Honest budgeting."

Honestly? A decade ago, Congress passed legislation designed to limit health-care costs by slowing the growth of Medicare payments to doctors. Each year, Congress passes a "patch" to prevent the cuts from taking effect. Stabenow proposed to make this system "honest" by eliminating the cuts permanently.

Medicare is hurtling toward insolvency, but Stabenow would essentially repeal past cost-cutting efforts. And even granting that it's a good idea not to cut Medicare payments to doctors, it's a strange interpretation of honesty to separate this $250 billion cost from the health-care bill and then claim that the other bill doesn't raise the deficit.

To be sure, stranger things have happened on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday morning, for example, a group of pranksters called the Yes Men -- the same ones who held a phony U.S. Chamber of Commerce news conference on Monday -- showed up dressed in brown inflatable balls five feet in diameter called SurvivaBalls. Three of the SurvivaBalls, attempting to draw attention to global warming, broke through a chain on the Capitol steps. When a police officer attempted to remove the intruders, one of them rolled all the way back down the steps. "See? I'm fine. I'm okay," the SurvivaBall called out when he landed. "The SurvivaBall will protect us. We will survive climate change."

But in the self-injury department, the Democrats' doc fix outdid even the SurvivaBalls. After a party lunch Tuesday afternoon, Senate Republicans were jubilant as they derided Stabenow's plan. "Finally we're coming to the first vote on health-care reform, and what do the Democrats propose to do?" Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) asked at the microphones. "They propose to raise the national debt by . . . a quarter of a trillion dollars, plus $50 billion interest."

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader, was rather less energetic when he appeared at the same microphones a few minutes later. He had already had to cancel a Monday-night vote on the doc fix because various Democrats, including Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), opposed it. Reid had hoped to bring the issue up for a vote on Tuesday, but it quickly became clear that he still didn't have the votes. In his opening statement, Reid didn't even mention the doc fix.

Fox News's Trish Turner pointed out that Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) had acknowledged that there aren't enough votes for the fix and that others were talking about scaling back the plan. "Will you talk about the status?"

"You seem to have all the information now, so why do you need anything?" was the extent of Reid's answer.

Another reporter asked whether Democrats could "still say health-care reform is paid for if you pass a quarter-trillion-dollar doc fix and don't pay for it."

Reid sought the protection of Obama, saying that "the White House favors what's on the floor now." Then he hinted that he wouldn't hold out for Stabenow's plan, floating the possibility of "a one-year fix."

Of course, that would be the same gimmick Congress has been using for years. But in politics, a lot of small gimmicks are easier to justify than one big gimmick. "

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:38 PM

Well, they could pass laws strictly regulating the insurance companies and eliminate the anti-trust exemption that the insurance industry enjoys. They could make it illegal for insurance companies to make a profit on their services, regulate how much insurance companies could charge, force them to take all prospective customers, and force them to cover all medical expenses. That would do the trick, I think, without adding to the deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:08 PM

And they would stay in business why, with NO profit allowed?

All the risks and none of the gain.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:37 PM

Public service, BB? Oh...I forgot! Such an idea as public service is sacrilege, isn't it? ;-)

Well, we have a single payer health coverage plan in Canada that IS done as a public service, and it costs considerably less per capita than the USA's present government health costs do. Our medical personnel are also quite well paid. I haven't seen any doctors here who cannot afford a nice house and a modern car and a prosperous life. I've heard they can earn even MORE in the USA...and that's where they can go if they don't mind working for a criminal oligarchy, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:41 PM

The insurance companies in Japan, Germany, and Switzerland (and probably a few other countries as well) have stayed in business under laws and regulations like those. The incentive is that they want to stay in business, so they would adapt as the insurance companies have done in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 05:08 PM

And they would stay in business why, with NO profit allowed? Why not? And if they packed it in, there'd be no pr0blem in replaciing them. The private health insurance that operates in the UK in parallel with the NHS (BUPA etc) is non-profit, and seems to do very nicely for itself.

So long as a business covers its operating costs, including the wage and salary bill, and costs of borrowing money if need be, then it can stay in business. Racking up those costs by trying to cream off a profit just serves to damage its viability.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Maryrrf
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:59 PM

If this doesn't prove that the system we have now is reprehensible, I don't know what does. Really it takes the cake. Too Small for Insurance
Does anyone seriously think that these insurance companies should control whether or not millions of Americans have or don't have access to health care?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: EBarnacle
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 01:00 AM

I am currently reading "Team of Rivals," by Doris Kearns Goodwin and, when I got to the chapter about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, was amazed at how similar the situation we have now is to the 1850's.

In that era, most of the "civilized" world had eliminated slavery for both moral and economic reasons. In many ways, there was a degree of levelling between the underclass and the elite. In the United States, the privileged elite were doing their best to keep the underclass right there--in servitude. Slavery was the defining issue of the first 87 years of the United States Constitution. The Know Nothing Party was doing its best to discriminate against the German and Irish Catholics. The Dred Scott case, decided by a large Southern majority on the Supreme Court, not only worked to return fugitive slaves to their owners but was an attempt to undermine restrictions on slavery where such restrictions existed. All of this was in service of a dying system.

At present, we are looking at the messiness of Democracy. It is noisy and often uncomfortable. Health Care is one of the defining issues of the current era and real reform will, undoubtably and unfortunately, take a lot longer than we wish. Eventually it will happen and we will catch up with the rest of the world.

As has been noted above, this is a very divisive issue. In an effort to avoid the debacle which struck the Clinton administration, the Obama administration is doing its best to allow Congress to do the spadework. If we do not make significant progress, it will be a shame and a betrayal of the public trust in Congress. President Obama is, sooner or later, going to have to start defining what he wants to see from the final bill. Harry and Louise are on their own this time.

This Summer, a friend attended a local Town Hall. On her way in, she saw a woman of a certain age with a sign protesting Socialized Health Care. When my friend asked her whether the was on Medicair, the woman replied "Yes, but that's different." She could not get an answer when she asked "How?"

In addition, every time a hospital or a doctor treats someone who has no money and no insurance, they lose money. If they treat enough people who don't have money, they have to go out of business. It would surely make more sense to get these people insurance so that their service providers could pay their own bills and maybe even provide appropriate service to everyone. And yes, that includes illegal aliens. From a public health perspective it makes more sense to treat them than not to treat them. Swine flu epidemic, anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 08:28 AM

If Obama is going to need Roland Burris' vote, he's got a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 01:41 AM

So the US government establishes it's own insurance program in "competition" with private insurance companies. In the first place, "competition" is a laughable term. Private businesses cannot compete with the federal government BECAUSE it does not have to show a profit to stay in business! The government has millions of tax payers to keep the government run health care (whatever) in business.

So private insurance companies cannot compete. What happens to them? Like any other profit oriented business, they go out of business.

Hooray, hooray, the liberal voices cry! Those dirty old stinking capitalists are getting what they deserve!

One aspect of that scenario hasn't been discussed, as far as I can tell. How many private health care insurance companies exist in the United States? The figure I have heard is 1,200 to 1,500. If they go out of business, how many jobs will be lost? Will the government operated program be able to absorb those who lost their jobs? Where will the money come from to support the cost?

Yep, you got it. Increased taxes from those who can afford to pay taxes. What about those who can't afford to pay the taxes? No problemo! They simply enjoy the benefits paid by those who can afford it.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

However, the problem might be that there are not enough people earning enough money to afford to pay for the total cost of health care.

So what do we do?

We move to those countries who will support us, and provide the health care we need.

Personally, I really enjoy England. Ireland and Scotland are good possibilities too, of course. Canada might be nice if I were to move close to LH so we could argue politics from time to time. I guess I'll just wait and see what happens.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:48 AM

""So the US government establishes it's own insurance program in "competition" with private insurance companies. In the first place, "competition" is a laughable term. Private businesses cannot compete with the federal government BECAUSE it does not have to show a profit to stay in business! The government has millions of tax payers to keep the government run health care (whatever) in business.

So private insurance companies cannot compete. What happens to them? Like any other profit oriented business, they go out of business.""


I can't quite make up my mind Doug, whether you are deliberately disingenuous, or genuinely too stupid to listen to what you are being told.

In the civilised countries of this world, healthcare consists of a public system, paid for by National Insurance, and Tax revenue, and a private system, whih does make a small, reasonable, profit.

These two entities are NOT in competition in the way that you assume.

They are in collaberation.

There are always those who are prepared to pay for peripheral benefits, and for them the private system is the way to go.

Most of them are enrolled in Insurance schemes which will defray the immediate cost of treatment, in return for regular ongoing premiums.

They do exclude some pre-existing conditions, but they are NOT as rapacious as the US insurance companies, knowing that they can price themselves out of the market, because patients have the free option to fall back on.

None of the British private health insurers have gone out of business, in fact they are all doing better than most commercial concerns. Even in a recession people still get sick.

So, for the umpteenth time, you have been told that your fears about killing the private system are groundless.

Are you saying then that you would object to the idea of YOUR private healthcare being much less expensive, and that you would refuse free public healthcare for the things your private company refuses to fund?

If the answer to that is yes, then I know exactly which of the two alternatives I mentioned above is true.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: maeve
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:59 AM

This program was interesting."The Healing of America"
If it's been mentioned already, please accept my apology.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 09:35 AM

Do not, repeat DO NOT attempt to change Douggie's mind with facts.

He absolutely ENJOYS his fantasy world- let him play. he's basically harmless- until he votes,that is, or manages to convert someone equally gormless to his delusions.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 11:05 AM

This probably belongs in a different, but related thread, but here goes:
Regardless of how healthcare providers are paid, privately or publicly, there is no incentive for any of them to lower prices. As long as the fee-for-service model is in place, it's beneficial to doctors and hospitals to provide more and more services (necessary or not, redundant or not. This has been amply demonstrated: in areas where there are more medical facilities available, healthcare costs tend to skyrocket; in less-well-provided areas the costs remain lower. And there's no perceptible difference in the patient's outcomes.
       The Mayo Clinic, for one, puts doctors on salary. There's no benefit to the doctor in providing more care than is required so they don't. Result? Much lower costs, and healthier (and less impoverished) patients.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 11:21 AM

I think you'd enjoy living in Canada, Doug. It's a nice place. So by all means, move up here if things get worse in the USA...and try to move fairly near Orillia, Ontario, and we can get together and discuss politics frequently.

Your fears about the private insurers going out of business are groundless. They haven't gone out of business here. It is as Don T says.

You're being manipulated by an avalanche of propaganda that is being disseminated on your (Fox) media by the health insurance industry who are spending vast amounts of money to fool people and maintain the status quo, and the status quo involves robbing your public blind and denying them health care unless they pay at least 10 times what I do for it. With that sort of money at stake, Doug, they will tell you ANYTHING.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 02:06 PM

The private insurance companies won't go out of business if they have to compete with a public option. They haven't gone out of business in the UK, where they have to compete with a universal single payer system, and they haven't gone out of business in several countries where they are not allowed to make a profit at all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 02:10 PM

By the way, the poster who is suggesting that the private insurance companies will go out of business if they have to compete with the government gets their health care courtesy of the US taxpayers, and the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 03:57 PM

Doug, I know this flies in the face of the standard practices and customs of American capitalism, but the truth is that a business does not have to make a profit to function well. As long as the business provides the goods and/or services for which it exists, and administrators and personnel receive livable salaries (this is called "expenses), it functions, and can continue to function. Most small businesses operate this way. Where a company needs "profit" (above and beyond expenses) is when it sells stock, and lots of people who neither administer nor produce anything sit back and clip coupons (stockholders). True, their function is to invest in the business by "loaning" it money, but they are certaily dispensable. Whenever a business needs money, they don't have to sell stock. They can borrow from a bank. That's one of the functions of banks. Lots of small businesses in the U. S. operate perfectly well, provide good service to their customers, and provide good salaries (minus the multi-million dollar annual CEO bonuses) for their employees.

Here's a news flash:   Wall Street is a big Ponzi scheme and, in actuality, it produces nothing.

There is no reason whatsoever that private insurance companies could not exist right along with and in competition with a government run program.

If the primary purpose of business were to produce goods and services rather than to simply maximize profits, this would be a whole bright new world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 04:00 PM

Butb you don't have to "show a profit in order to stay in business" Doug - you just have to avoid making a loss.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 01:50 AM

Profit is NOT an ugly word! That's why private businesses exist ..to make a profit! To say a business can exist without making a profit may be true in the short run, but only an idiot would be in business to break even. It is not difficult to separate, on this forum, folks who HAVE owned and operated a business from those who have not. They are the ones who write utter nonsense when it comes to writing about profit and loss.

I HAVE owned and operated two profitable businesses. So don't tell me, Don, that a business can be successful (a profit oriented one) without making a profit.

And those who believe that a private business can compete with the federal government, well, you are clearly nuts!

And Carol, yes, I participate in a government operated Medicare Advantage program. It is not something GIVEN to me, I earned it. I payed into Social Security all of my working life just like everyone else who participates in the same program. Yesterday I received a letter from my insurance provider informing me that according to their records I qualify for "extra" help to pay for my prescription drugs. I wrote them a letter today informing them that with my social security income and income from investments, I require no "extra" help. If, Carol C., you had received the same letter, would you have done the same?

DouogR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 02:47 AM

It depends on what you call profit, Doug. And, yes, I have run my own business. Good service at a fair price. Must have been, because it kept expanding until I had all the business I could handle. I made a pretty decent living at it. Currently my wife and I own our own home free and clear, and although we are not rich, we are debt-free and live quite comfortably.

Also, we have health insurance (my wife still works part time at the Seattle Public Library) and we are both of an age when we qualify for Medicare. Since I wasn't physically able to serve in the military (polio when I was quite young), I don't have VA benefits.

So please don't try to tell me what you think I don't know.

What I see are millions of people who are cut out of the system for no reason other than that they are not profitable to the insurance companies. Other countries don't allow their citizens to do without in this manner. And many of them have better, far less expensive health care than we do.

City on the hill? I don't think so. The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, and we just don't measure up.

By the way, I'm not a socialist, but I'm not frightened of the concept either. There are countries in this world that are frankly and openly socialistic, and they are just as free and democratic as we are, if no moreso.

(Way past my bedtime, but if you want to pursue what I raised in my last paragraph above, particularly my last sentence, I'll be happy to tomorrow)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 02:52 AM

If I didn't need the help, I would definitely have done the same.'

However, it is WRONG to say that business can't survive if they can't make a profit. As I have already said several times, the insurance companies in several countries are not allowed, by law, to make a profit, and they're doing just fine.

I happen to be a small business owner (with JtS). THAT (and pre-existing conditions) IS WHY WE CAN'T GET INSURANCE. If we could earn a decent salary, make all of our expenses, and have enough left over to reinvest in our infrastructure, we would be quite able to not only survive, but to actually thrive without making any profit.

If the insurance companies in Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and all of the other countries who aren't allowed to make a profit at all, by law, can not only survive, but thrive and do a far better job than the insurance companies in the US do, our insurance companies sure as hell can survive if all they have to do is compete with a public option.

And on the subject of Medicare, certainly the above poster has paid into the system. And that's exactly what people who benefit from the public option would do as well. The difference, is that the above poster has the benefit of being able to rely on the government to ensure that they can be adequately covered for a cost that is affordable. That's what those of us who want the public option want as well. It's pretty selfish for someone to say "I deserve this, but I couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not anyone else can have it also".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 02:53 AM

In my last post, where it says, "above poster", it should say, second to last poster.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 07:42 AM

Yes, what Carol says and the fact that American business can't compete with businesses in places where health care is provided is the best argument for public health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 10:44 AM

Douggie apparently believes that Social Security and Medicare are one and the same thing.

yet another example of his genius.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 12:02 PM

"And those who believe that a private business can compete with the federal government, well, you are clearly nuts!"

Doug, tell this to America's private schools. And Fed-X. And UPS. And Blackwater (or is it now XE). They don't seem to understand that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 12:52 PM

Here is a link to BUPA, which provides private health insurance alongside the British NHS. Its annual turnover in the year ended 31 December 2004 was £3.6 billion - none of it "profit" - any surplus to operating costs get put back into service development.

And it's not a question of "competing" with the NHS. The relationship between private medicine and the NHS is one of cooperation, as is only right.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 04:37 PM

Americans spend 50% more on health care than any other country in the world.

In a survey of citizens' general happiness and satisfaction with their lives, the top country was Denmark. The United States did not make the top ten. Stress from a long list of causes was the main reason that the U. S. didn't make the cut.

U. S. spends 15% of its GDP on health care, and in quality of health care, based on such things as longevity, infant mortality, and a whold batch of other statistics, the U. S. ranks 11th in the world, behind Finland (3), Sweden (2), and Iceland (1).   — Forbes

Hip replacement: in the U. S., approximately $45,000. In Poland, about $8,000. In India, about $7,000 (in clean, modern hospitals and done by doctors at least as well trained as American doctors). And in some foreign hospitals, such as in Thailand (prices comparable to India's), the price includes follow-up physical therapy. There are travel agencies that book "health care tours" for Americans to go to foreign countries to have procedures done for a fraction of what they would cost in the United States, even including the cost of air fare and other travel expenses. Thailand has better, far less expensive health care than the United States! Whodathunkit!??

If health insurance premiums continue to escalate at the rate they have for the past two decades, in ten years, the average family of four will spend half of its income on health insurance premiums.

If your house is on fire and you call the fire department, they come and put out the fire, and they do not charge you for it. It's generally paid for out of property taxes.

Likewise police protection. If you call 911 and tell them that someone is trying to break into your house, they will dispatch a squad car immediately. No charge.

The police department (local and state) also manages traffic control on the streets and highways. And construction of those streets, highways, and bridges in the first place was paid for out of taxes. And their maintenance is paid for the same way.

In many cities (Seattle is one), if you have a heart attack or other emergency health problem such as a stroke, or a fall, you can likewise call 911, and the fire department will dispatch a medical aid van staffed with a pair of emergency medical technicians, equipped with a van-load of equipment such as defibrillators, oxygen, et al. In Seattle, if you call 911 for such a medical emergency, a Medic One van will be at your door within three minutes.

[In February of 2000, when I fell in the bathroom and fractured my left femur, my wife called Medic One, and they were here within a couple of minutes. The EMTs confirmed that I had broken my leg, splinted it, and transported me to Swedish Hospital. No charge. The hospital charged something like $24,000 for repairs. Fortunately, my insurance (actually, my wife's insurance from her job, which also covers me) covered most of the cost of the surgery and a three week stay in the hospital.]

Education, from kindergarten through high school is free of charge to the individual student, paid for by taxes.

Have you made use of a public library? A monumental resource for entertainment and education, and the only time I have ever been charged is when I returned a book or a CD or a DVD late (10¢ a day).

All of these things are free of charge to the user, paid for by taxes. These are the things that some people who are apparently incapable of making connections would regard as "socialism" and object to strenuously, were it not for the fact that they use them themselves, don't pay attention to how they came about or are maintained, and simply take them for granted as perfectly normal.

But they howl like a banshee at putting something as absolutely essential as health care into the same catagory and paying for it with taxes, even though every wealthy, industrialized country in the world does it except the United States.

A woman with breast cancer, who has health insurance, is denied coverage on the basis of a "prior condition." What was the prior condition? She had had acne as a teenager. Her local hospital won't treat her unless she pays $20,000 up front. The American system has condemned her to death!

There are people who can't afford to go to a dentist, so they try to ignore dental problems until they become so painful that they have no choice. Usually this involves full-mouth extraction, with replacement by dentures—if they can afford the dentures. Totally preventable if treated in time, but they can't afford to.

The same with a whole encyclopedia of medical conditions which are relatively minor if treated early, but can become life-threatening if not treated. Not treated because they try to ignore what seems to be a minor pain because the rent has to be paid and the kids have to be fed.

I could catalog a list of such things as long as your leg, Doug, that are not from my imagination, or Michael Moore's imagination, but are very real and widespread in this supposedly "enlightened" country.

A combination of callous greed on the part of health insurance companies, total lack of integrity on the part of many of our elected officials, and sheer bull-headed ignorance on the part of all too many people who oppose an easily implemented humanitarian solution to the problem simply because they fear the word "socialism."

For shame!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 05:20 PM

The figures I'm seeing are that US consumers are paying twice as much (100% more) than consumers in other developed countries, for health care, and that the US government is paying 50% more than the governments in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 05:52 PM

Probably right, Carol. The initial stat I quoted is from about ten years ago (I need to update), and things have been escalating at a staggering rate since.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 06:29 PM

Well, I suppose at this point, there really is nothing to do except wait to see what the health care geniuses in Congress comes up with. It appears that the public option is still very much alive, as are cuts to Medicare and the deficit will continue to climb.

So be it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 06:40 PM

Actually, the proposal being promoted in the House now saves money. There was a new report from the government agency that the anti-public option people were quoting so liberally a couple of months ago (can't remember the name right now), that shows that the public option actually reduces the deficit. So there really is no legitimate argument for not having a robust public option (except greed).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 06:54 PM

Congressional Budget Office...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/cbo_a_strong_public_plan_saves.html

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 07:08 PM

Here's some interesting commentary on the subject of fiscal conservatism and health care reform...

http://trueslant.com/zaidjilani/2009/10/24/the-public-option-saves-money-2/

Here's a bit of cognitive dissonance that's been bothering me during the entirety of the health care debate. The most ardent opponents of the public option - a new public insurance plan that would be offered to those who cannot get insurance through the private market (although unfortunately it is not open to everyone) - have been politicians and pundits who proudly refer to themselves as fiscal conservatives.

You know these folks - the Mary Landrieus and Evan Bayhs of the world. They play their violins on behalf of our (admittedly sizable) national debt, and decry the inclusion of the public option in health care legislation by saying it will cost too much. And yet what we've seen from all the different studies on the subject - whether from outside groups or the widely-respected nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office - is that the only way to save real money is by including the public option in health care legislation. And what's more, the better the option - meaning, the more it's able to compete effectively with private insurance to be able to offer the same level of care for less - the more money we save.

Thus, if the fiscal conservatives among us really are genuine in their complaints about cost, it'd make sense to see them being the most ardent defenders of the public option. Heck, if they were really serious, they'd be demanding that we shelve all this talk about offering a tiny number of Americans a public option (what the result looks like it's unfortunately shaping up to be) and start talking about outright emulating foreign systems of health insurance, which generally revolve around one national health insurance plan covering most people with the option of getting more care for extra cost (kind of like our Medicare or the French system). That's by far the most fiscally conservative way to deliver health care to all.

Yet what we've seen - from the conservative "Blue Dog" coalition or Evan Bayh's Blue Dog-style coalition in the Senate - is a tendency to attack the public option, or at least weaken it as much as possible. That doesn't make any sense if these people are really just about saving money and cutting the national debt. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance on their part, or they simply have other things in mind - like an ideological fixation against the role of the government for the purpose of social welfare, or the amount of cash they receive in campaign contributions from the different actors in the medical industry that oppose a public option. But either way, it really does not make any sense.

And for that matter, neither does the fact that these same folks also seem to be the quickest to line up to support costly overseas adventures and to fight back against any effort to rein in corporate welfare or waste, fraud, and abuse in the military sector.

If this continues to be the case, I say they back off their pose as fiscal conservatives, because that label just isn't true.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:00 PM

The entire process is so depressing. We should have had a list of problems, and a list of existing strengths to foster, discuss them openly and address them. Sounds so simple. Instead we have a cloud of confusion, a predominance of hidden agenda, competing interests compromising (or not), sound bytes and dishonesty all around and a final product of bullshit stew. More government, more regulations, more public expense, more private expense, more insurer profits without systemic insurer accountability (the only way you can get it you liars), a teeny bit more egalitarian and not so many people screwed. And less autonomy which is the key component giving the US the best health care in the world, despite the inequalities.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:01 PM

Carol: You appear to be a good researcher. Sometime when you have nothing to do, take a look at the track record of the Congressional Budget Office. Compare it's projections for new programs, regardless of administration, and see how close their projections for costs relate to actual figures incurred. You can save some time by merely researching Wall Street Journal editorials for the past two weeks or so. They presented a graph of projections versus actual cost for several programs including Medicare. As I recall, Medicare was projected to cost 10 Billion over ten years or so. It actually cost some ten times that amount.

I know you abhor the WSJ so pick another source and see what you come up with.

They even were wrong when they projected the cost of the prescription drug program for Seniors passed by the Bush administration. The program didn't cost anything near that projected by the CBO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:07 PM

If the CBO is so unreliable, why were so many Republicans and others fighting against health care reform so eager to quote their figures when they said that the House bill would increase the deficit?

I don't have time to go look right now, but I won't be at all surprised if I go back and read this whole thread and see that the above poster is one of the people quoting the CBO when it suited the purposes of the anti-health care reform people to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:16 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, but I did do a search on "congressional budget office" (but not CBO). I have not found any example of that poster endorsing the CBO's earlier figures in this thread, and I don't have time to search more thoroughly in this thread or any of the others, but it might shock the poster who is now criticizing the CBO to know that FOX NEWS endorsed the CBO when its reports supported their position a couple of months ago.

So either their earlier report that the earlier version of the House bill was not reliable, or this one is. Can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 07:17 AM

It doesn't make sense that the House bill saves money now when it didn't before. There's no way to trust anybody inside the beltway.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 01:27 PM

The bill changed between the two times that the CBO evaluated it, and in the first evaluation, quite a few aspects of the bill did not get examined (which is why it came out looking as bad as it did - the aspects that didn't get included in the first examination had a mitigating effect on the total costs).

There is no reason to think that there is anything wrong with their analyses based on the fact that they got two different results.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 01:31 PM

That, by the way, is the reason they send bills to the CBO for analysis. They send them to the CBO to find out what the flaws are in the bill (financially speaking), and then they make changes to make the bill more acceptable. This is precisely what has happened in the case of this bill (and what I predicted would happen, either earlier in this thread or in another thread), back when the anti-reform people were using the earlier CBO report to support their arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 07:35 PM

It's confusing to me: the Republicans say the CBO report says health care reform will be a net loser, and the Democrats say it will save money.

          Driving down the cost of malpractice insurance through tort reform, however, would definately save money.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 07:52 PM

It's two different reports about two different versions of the bill. The old version is the ones the Republicans are quoting the CBO on. The new version is the one that says the bill will reduce the deficit.

Since they're not considering passing the old version, the earlier report from the CBO that the Republicans like to quote is totally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 09:04 AM

The "Conservatives" and others whining about the U.S. national debt & how we can't afford to provide universal health care would do well to remember where the current debt came from: The administration of Georgie & the BuShites.

They have met the enemy, and it is them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:12 PM

Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Monday.

The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.

"America's healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial," the report reads.

"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill," Kelley said in a statement.

"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."

One example -- a paper-based system that discourages sharing of medical records accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.

"It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient's record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed," the report reads.

Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters:

* Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.

* Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.

* Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.

* Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.

* Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.

"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.

"American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada," it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.

All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:18 PM

yeah and all that's the same as it ever was. They've been fixing it for decades but now they will fix it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:23 PM

Maybe they should fix it and make an appointment to come back and talk to us again in three years, about all the other great things they are capable of.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 05:35 PM

"abolish your present system in the USA and copy the Canadian system in every way. You would save 7% of the USA's yearly budget for other things!"

Thestar.com Monday, October 26, 2009 Toronto Edition

Health care, the elephant in the room
Chantal Hébert

In Canada, as in many other industrialized countries, health care is very much the elephant in the government budget room.

Take Ontario. Last week, the province projected a record $24.7 billion shortfall for this fiscal year, with more red ink to come over the next few years. But even if Premier Dalton McGuinty gave the green light to a 5 per cent spending cut in every area except for health and education tomorrow, the government would still save less than $3 billion.

Health-care spending is the biggest item on Ontario's budget list and its costs have already been going up faster than the rate of economic growth since before the recession. Likewise, federal health transfers have been increasing yearly at a much faster pace than the GDP for much of the past decade.

Since 2001, the federal government has transferred $250 billion to the provinces for health care, with another $150 billion to come over the next five years.

By the time the current arrangements run out in five years, the federal health transfer will have almost tripled from what it was in 2000.

Those rapidly rising transfers are the result of successive federal-provincial accords, negotiated after Canada entered an era of big budget surpluses.

Five years ago, Paul Martin and the premiers signed a 10-year health accord designed, at least according to the then-prime minister, to fix medicare for a generation.

With the accord past the halfway mark, many of the reforms the multi-billion-dollar package was supposed to buy are failing to materialize. Home care and basic pharmacare programs remain embryonic in many areas of the country.

The creation of electronic health records remains at best a work in progress. On that score the eHealth Ontario scandal may not be an isolated incident.

In the years to come, the initiatives funded through Martin's health accord are expected to provide fodder for future auditor general reports at both the federal and provincial levels.

With one voice, the Liberals and the Conservatives have promised not to cut social transfers to the provinces to make ends meet federally. But that does not mean a future federal government would allow them to continue to increase at the current pace.

Once the 2004 accord runs out in five years, Stephen Harper's government has promised to allocate health transfers to the provinces on a per capita basis.

Ontario would be the big winner of that reform. But to fulfill Harper's commitment, the federal government of the day will either have to take money out of the envelope of other provinces to reallocate it to the more populous Ontario or else dig deep in its empty pockets to make the health fiscal pie even bigger.

In a surplus era, Ottawa and the provinces bought their way out of the medicare debate. The resumption of that debate at a time when government coffers are empty stands to turn commitments like the recently restated Liberal promise of a national child-care initiative or the various federal and provincial plans to green the Canadian economy into as many empty promises.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:30 AM

YES!

That's one down.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:09 AM

My representative voted against it. I will remember that the next time he wants my vote in a primary race.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:10 AM

And they did it without E-Verify and tort reform. If it gets by the Senate, the trial lawyers and the illegal aliens are going to love this.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:04 AM

Space Aliens willobably like it , too- we need to do something about that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:19 AM

Now the fun begins as the Senate, where all good bills go to die, takes it up with Harry Reid saying that they mifght not get to it until next year... Next year??? Yikes... Isn't that what happened in '93??? Deja vu, all over again...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:23 AM

A win for health reform is a win for us all.

On to the Senate!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:16 AM

Write yer Senator, Charley... No, better yet, send him a few thousand bucks fir his re-election campaign... That's what the health insurance folks are doing this mornin'...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:10 PM

Well, here's an interesting piece of news. Dennis Kucinich (who is a true progressive) voted against the bill. He explains why below...

Congressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO, stating:

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system."

"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."

"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross."

"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy."

"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies."

"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street."

"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."

"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."

Please know the struggle for real health care reform will continue. Contribute, we can make a difference.

Thank you.
The Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:35 PM

Yeah, Dennis is completely correct, LH...

The only hope we have is that, like many Dems have said, ya' gotta start somewhere... But I'm not too sure this is a good starting... I guess that the Repubs not voting for it is supposed to make me think that this is progress but I'm not all that sure it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:39 PM

While I appreciate Dennis' stance on this issue, unlike him, I don't have the luxury of standing my ground for single payer health care. As someone who needs some kind of access to health care now, I need something to pass that will enable me and JtS to get access to health care. It's a life and death issue for us. I'm celebrating the passage of the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:44 PM

The tougher job is still ahead. The Senate is going to be a taller mountain to climb. If the Democrats can't get a vote by late January, the climb is going to be even steeper. The closer they get to 2010 elections, the more danger that Democrats will lose seats in that election ...especially those who won office in the last election.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:48 PM

The bill is full of bandaids and special interest additions such as no funding for abortions, etc. Some 1500 pages of bumff.
The senate will take a long time to untangle it and integrate with their own bill.
Thirty-eight Democrats joined a united Republican opposition, and came close to derailing the bill (I don't count cloud niners such as Kucinch, all he offers is comic relief when serious consideration is needed).
The Democrats will be very lucky if they get a bill through Congress this session; the next is shaping up to have a majority in opposition. To get the bill through both houses will require compromises, 'reform' of health care in the U. S. is a long way off.

Incidentally, Canada health care, often cited in comparison, is not uniform across the country. Alberta Health Care Premiums are about $1200/year and there is strong talk of an increase next year. Many people buy Blue Cross insurance in addition. Drugs are only partly paid for (co-payment) by the province (also part paid by my pension, but pension 'reform' may kill that). Certain new drugs used in cancer treatment, etc., are not included in the Alberta plan; a few cost thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:01 PM

The tougher job is still ahead. The Senate is going to be a taller mountain to climb. If the Democrats can't get a vote by late January, the climb is going to be even steeper.

Which is why we need to move quickly and not slow the process down as many Republicans are saying we need to do.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 02:09 PM

The "cloud-niners", Q, are the people pursuing the conventional viewpoint and doing business as usual. Kucinich appears like a cloud-niner to you merely because one sane man in the Valley of the Mad is always assumed to be insane by the local citizenry.

This so-called health care reform bill is a giant give-away to the private health insurance industry in the USA.

Carol, I understand your particular situation in this and why you feel as you do. What I wonder sometimes, though, is why don't you and Jack move to Canada where you could get mostly free health coverage, and at a very moderate yearly tax rate? Jack is a Canadian citizen, so there's nothing standing in the way of your doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 02:55 PM

Actually, HR3200 did get one Republican vote.

Rep. Anh Cao (R-LA 2nd District), who was born in Saigon in 1967, voted for the bill after being convinced that illegal aliens would not be covered.

He was elected last year with barely half the vote, replacing William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:21 PM

JtS, being a Canadian citizen, could move back to Canada any time he wanted to. But I would not be able to go there with him unless he could support me there. That would mean he would need to have a good job. That's not as easy as some might think, especially considering the state of the world's economy right now. Our means of making a living is here in the US at this time. Maybe some day that will change. We'll see.

I don't see this bill as being anywhere near as much of a givaway to the insurance industry as the bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee. At least this one has a public option, and while it's not the best of all of the possible public options, it's hardly the worst one, either.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:33 PM

Half a loaf is better than no bread. It sounds like an absolutely rotten deal, but like the best deal you have a chance of getting, given all the big money and the bought politicians you have against you.

Hard luck - but Good Luck!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:14 PM

I see, Carol. Well, I hope that the two of you can work out a situation in Canada at some point. It would be good having you here.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:36 PM

Thanks. I know I would love living there. We'll see how it goes. Don't leave the porch light on for us, though. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:42 PM

"Rep. Anh Cao (R-LA 2nd District), who was born in Saigon in 1967, voted for the bill after being convinced that illegal aliens would not be covered."


                   Wow! They sure snowed him!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:42 PM

Dennis Kucinich RULES!!

(God, don't I wish!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:00 PM

It's not just the insurance industry. It's a host of related interests living off the employee benefits infrastructure. And entrenched bureaucrats.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: maire-aine
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:51 PM

Moving to Canada sounds great, but I, like hundreds of thousands of others, don't have that luxury. I can't wait for the perfect solution; I need "good enough" now (or at least by 30-Apr-2010). I no longer have an employer, and I'm 3 years away from Medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:30 PM

It's actually millions of others who are in the same boat. Tens of millions, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:02 AM

I think most everyone can agree that the system we have now, being driven by the insurance conglomerates, is an overpriced scam deluxe, and have driven medical costs to way out of proportion, as to services received, verses services paid for. Right off the top, going through an insurance company, adds a minimum of 30% to the overall cost, just in the paperwork, profit, and price setting..just for starters...however, having a government run program would be as efficient as a twelve pound yo-yo. Virtually everything they have run, runs inefficiently, is cost prohibitive, and turns to shit. Thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking, a pipe dream at best. I wholeheartedly agree, that something needs to be done, but I'm not at all sure, or confident that an over-expensive government program, is the answer...just a short term 'solution',..that will have to be fixed, by another bad idea. History shows this plainly...but then again, history teaches us that man never learns from history!..GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:42 AM

That's not true. The post office runs just fine, and does it for far less money than companies like FedEx and UPS. In fact, whenever private enterprise competes with the government, the government does it at least as well if not better and for a lot less money (with the exception, some of the time, of public schools). Take the private contractors we are paying for in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, as compared to the military doing the same jobs.

Any time private (for profit) enterprise gets involved, the costs go up rather than down, and efficiency is not improved.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:39 AM

Guess the old Ronnie Reagan shibboleth of 'Government is the problem, not the solution' still has traction.

Pity.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:31 AM

Government is part of the problem....because the government in the USA has merely become an agent of a cartel of rich corporate interests. Thus it is serving them, not the public. An honest government that genuinely served the public could do much good, but a dishonest government that serves special interests is a disaster.

As for Reagan, his "small government" rhetoric differed radically from what he actually did while in office. The USA national debt took 198 years to reach the mark of 1 trillion $...but it only took the next 12 years from the inception of the Reagan administration to reach the incredible total of about 4 trillion dollars! So it was quadrupled by presidents (Reagan and Bush senior) who pretended to be in favor of small government and reduced public spending. It increased further under Bush and is increasing further under Obama.

All of these presidents, whether posing as conservatives or as liberals, are enlarging the government, increasing the national debt, bailing out corrupt banks and giant corporations who have proven utterly fiscally irresponsible, and robbing the public while so doing.

Why? Well, the $ySStem is built to work that way. It's not what the architects of the Constitution intended, mind you, but that's what it has become. The $ySStem functions at the behest of the largest international banks and the largest multinational corporate entities and it does what benefits them.

Needless to say, that does not benefit the general public which is going deeper and deeper into debt year by year.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 10:29 AM

Ronald Reagan said whatever popped up on his teleprompter. What he did wasn't much. What happened while he was in office, happened under the direction of somebody, but...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:05 AM

Rig-
Out of curiosity---if you recognize the existence of a large number of undocumented aliens (we used to call them "sick birds", or ill eagles), and you don't want to provide them with health care, how do you propose that we dispose of all the bodies?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:25 AM

From today's Guardian report ( Obama's health insurance reforms clear first hurdle on way to becoming law:

"...Under its terms, an additional 36 million Americans would be given health coverage. That would leave about 18 million people, about a third of whom are illegal immigrants, without any coverage by 2019..."

So who are the 12 million people who are not illegal aliens who won't be covered?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:44 AM

Post office has been going broke for some time, as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Administration, Food Stamps, Welfare, all run inefficiently...Among others

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:54 AM

I don't understand that either. I think the "uninsured" in the future (eight years from now) can only be the people who didn't have employer provided insurance, or opted out and didn't then or otherwise enroll in an exchange or the public option. I think they will be covered (receive treatment) under the public option but with penalties, collectible or not. The answer is in a CBO document somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:58 AM

The postal service is doing just fine. Those other programs are no less efficient than private companies are, and they don't have a profit motive for jacking up prices.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:10 PM

That is, I would expect that they would get emergency and acute care. Then I guess the providers have to go after them privately unless and until they can get reimbursement from the public option or Medicaid. I haven't noticed any reporting requirement imposed on health care providers to rat out fee-for-service recipients, but they are probably there or coming eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 04:01 PM

"The postal service is doing just fine." Right, and I'm going to win the lottery Wednesday night. If they are doing so fine, why are they considering cutting out Saturday delivery?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 04:17 PM

People are sending less mail. There is less need. That has nothing to do with the viability of the Postal Service and how well it's run.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 04:26 PM

Wrong. Less mail is less overhead. As far as less incentive, profit motive comes from INNOVATIONS, as to better the company. What motivation do a Government(G3) employee have to do anything, but to show up???

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 05:19 PM

Same motive as any other employee has to do their job. Pride in doing something useful (which might not apply in all jobs, but definitely does with a useful job like a postal service, or medicine), a wage, and the possibility of promotion or the sack.

What's the difference just because the employer is a private company?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 05:44 PM

Less mail is not necessarily less overhead. Overhead still needs to be paid on physical infrastructure, salaried employees, utility bills, vehicle upkeep, and many other kinds of operating costs. The routes of mail carriers don't get smaller just because they're carrying less mail. In fact, other than hourly wages for some employees, and benefits for fewer employees, most overhead is not reduced by people sending less mail.

As McGrath said, people have the same incentives as anyone who works for corporations of comparable size, which are also bureaucracies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:53 PM

"why are they considering cutting out Saturday delivery?"

They're doing it to piss you off, Doug! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:23 PM

Of course, in the case of the Post Office, if you don't like the public option you're free to patronize the private sector. The way it would be with a public option for health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 10:15 PM

Ah, Jesus, Dick, leave the facts outa this, willya?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 10:37 PM

"Rig----if you recognize the existence of a large number of undocumented aliens... and you don't want to provide them with health care, how do you propose that we dispose of all the bodies?"

            Simple, Dick! You simply persuade them to go back where they came from before they become bodies. That way they can work for health care coverage in their own countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:55 PM

Published on Sunday, November 8, 2009 by the Huffington Post
Kucinich's Brave Health Vote Vs. Obama's Failed Promise
by Lee Stranahan

There were plenty of cowardly votes in the House last night but there was only one truly brave one. The unsung hero of the night was Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. Despite enormous pressure to support H.R. 3962, Rep. Kucinich did the right thing and voted 'no'. Unlike the Blue Dog votes against the bill, he did it for all the right reasons.

In a principled and practical statement, Rep. Kucinich said what a growing number of progressives have realized as we've watched real health care reform be compromised again and again.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The "robust public option" which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Personally, I supported President Obama in the primaries and the election but do not support him on this corporate giveaway built on broken campaign promises. I voted for the Barack Obama who opposed the individual mandate, who said the negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN and who campaigned against backroom deals with PhARMA.

Conservatives have expressed outrage for months about the way the health care bill was handled. Their anti-government anger is misplaced because the lets the insurances and drug companies who really helped drive this bill off the hook. But I understand their sense that this bill was passed despite the people.

Progressives should be every bit as upset that President Obama lied to us to get his historic health bill. The citizens of this country did not have a seat at the table. Proponents of the Single Payer didn't have a seat at the table. Under the guise of health care reform, we watched as the insurance industry got a bill passed that entrenches and enriches them.

Don't let anyone fool you that this bill is a good start. It's got a poison pill "Public Option" that is designed to fail. As the brilliant RJ Eskow wrote recently about the House bill's public option,

The plan will have low enrollment and little power to negotiate, causing the CBO to state as fact what I've long considered possible: That the public option could become a dumping ground where private plans jettison sicker people, while lacking the efficiencies of scale or negotiating power to get better rates or administer itself more economically.
As a result, says the CBO, a public plan's premiums might be higher than private insurance. While the CBO's word isn't gospel, it's entirely possible that they're underestimating the cost of any "public option" we're likely to see this year. The likeliest political outcome, once the House and Senate bills are combined, is a non-robust "public option" with a state-by-state opt out. The CBO didn't consider the opt-out when it came up with its shocking (to some) estimate.

Even if it passes in its weak form, this Public Option will be the target of the GOP for years and they won't rest until it is dead. As the Public Option kicks into gear, they will find stories of 'rationing' and denial of care they can highlight, true or not. They will use the higher costs as proof of the Public Option's folly. They will grind away at the Public Option relentlessly but they will leave the Individual Mandate alone. If anything, once the Mandate is in place, the Republicans will make sure the insurance industry is 'free to compete' and unrestricted.

The corporate interests that spend millions to influence the media and both political parties want you to ignore Congressman Kucinich. Too many Democrats unwittingly help them. Don't be a patsy.

People like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have been made pariahs by establishment Democrats. They have all been marginalized and made fun of...but check their records. They have been considered 'fringe' because they are telling us the truth about corporate abuses of power long before most of the rest of us catch up to the reality of what's happened.

If enough of us stand with Dennis Kucinich, maybe we'll actually get real health care reform. If we don't, maybe we don't deserve that reform.

© 2009 Huffington Post

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 01:20 AM


"why are they considering cutting out Saturday delivery?"

They're doing it to piss you off, Doug! ;-)


He doesn't use the postal service. It's a socialist organization.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 01:51 AM

Ha! ;-) And I guess he doesn't drive on any public access roads and highways either. More socialism! And he must despise the armed forces, the police, the courts, the public schools, the public libraries and parks and utilities....egad! Socialism closing in from all directions!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 03:49 AM

"Rig----if you recognize the existence of a large number of undocumented aliens... and you don't want to provide them with health care, how do you propose that we dispose of all the bodies?"

You can kill two birds with one stone.....take the bodies and mail them back to Mexico!!

See CarolC...innovation!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 07:25 AM

Maybe the Americans should have dealt with the Pilgrim Fathers along those lines...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 10:08 AM

You can kill two birds with one stone.....take the bodies and mail them back to Mexico!!

See CarolC...innovation!


Yes? And how does your being innovative all on your own with no marketplace incentive relate to the idea of innovation in the business arena?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 11:45 AM

Rig-
Do you have a practical suggestion? Like a feasible way to chase 12 million sick birds back to Mexico? Without totally destroying the building trades and meat packing industry?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 12:35 PM

Well...there's always the Final Solution, right? (speaking satirically, you understand...)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 12:44 PM

...however, having a government run program would be as efficient as a twelve pound yo-yo. Virtually everything they have run, runs inefficiently, is cost prohibitive, and turns to shit.

As others have pointed out, that is not true in all cases. We have a VA hospital here which is run very well and takes good care of our veterans and their families. In fact, I remember reading somewhere in all of these debates, that the VA health care service was very well run; a good model to emulate.

I am all for Kucinich and single payer, but what we are getting is a start, at least it is IF they keep in the public option and IF they do not take away a woman's right to choose. I cannot believe they have even a chance of doing so, but it appears they might. As I understand it, if the Stupak amendment stands, not only will women not be able to have public insurance cover abortions which it hasn't done for a long while now, anyway, but also any private insurance company which accepts even one penny of federal funds will no longer offer insurance to cover abortions because they would lose any federal funds, so a woman would be left without any coverage. One congressman had the gall to say women could always buy extra insurance on their own, as in some company might set up insurance for abortion-only coverage and sell it exclusively.

I'm thinking it's time it fricassee a few old, male balls or at least make them think we will. We fought long and hard for our rights...we cannot let a few old men take them away, again!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 12:54 PM

"Virtually everything they have run, runs inefficiently, is cost prohibitive, and turns to shit."

Hmmm. Well, I guess if you look at that great socialist organization, the American military, you could make that argument. ;-) They are, though, extremely efficient when it comes to killing people and smashing up cities and infrastructure. I don't think anyone can deny that. But are they cost prohibitive??? Yikes! Bloody right they are. Perhaps it is time to turn the USA armed forces over to a nice friendly profit-making capitalist management group, such as the CEOs of WalMart? (rolling my eyes)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 01:00 PM

Between Diana DeGette and Michael Bennet, I have been really proud of being from Colorado this week. Here's a reply from Bennet from a letter we sent him last night:

Let me begin by saying that I understand and respect the strong feelings on both sides of the abortion debate. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is the law of the land, and I support preserving the right of a woman to choose whether to have an abortion. That said, I believe that we should work toward accomplishing goals that we all share, such as decreasing the number of abortions and promoting better options for struggling single mothers.

Access to reproductive health services is a vital component of our nation's overall health care system. Reproductive health services provide women with preventative primary care, safe and responsible family planning, and through screening and treatment, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections. We must work to protect and ensure that women have access to comprehensive health care – especially services that provide family planning assistance.

Under current law, the use of federal funds to perform or promote abortion is prohibited except in the cases of rape or incest, or when the mother's life is endangered. As the Senate continues to consider reform of our health care system, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.


Sincerely,

Michael Bennet
United States Senator

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 01:19 PM

LH, to the extent that they have turned military functions over to private corporations (you know, "private contractors" like Haliburton and Blackwater), it has resulted in much higher costs for the taxpayers - by orders of magnitude.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 01:22 PM

(The innovations have been rather interesting, too... drinking vodka from each others arses being one of the more picturesque... )

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 03:43 PM

Yeah, I know, Carol...it's always been a very expensive business hiring mercenaries. They charge more for the privilege of being immediately available...at the right price, of course. Their loyalty is suspect, because they will always serve the highest bidder.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 05:02 PM

PBS is re-airing a Frontline program it first ran on April 15, 2008, entitled "Sick Around the World." It examines the healthcare systems of other advanced democracies with the idea that they could provide the United States with ideas as to how to reform its healthcare system.

It airs tonight at 9:00 on KCTS Channel 9 in Seattle. Check you local listings

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:01 PM

Why is it that all the congressman, and apparently, most of the voices protesting a public option seem to be getting their health care through just such a public option......and loving it? Medicare, VA, Federal government health plans etc.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:06 PM

Now there ya go again, Dick - - - allowing logic to interfere with the thought process.......

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 07:24 AM

"Rig - Do you have a practical suggestion? Like a feasible way to chase 12 million sick birds back to Mexico? Without totally destroying the building trades and meat packing industry?"


          Get real, dick, it was the intruders who destroyed the building trades and the meat packing industry. Those jobs used to pay good money.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 10:31 AM

Actually, it was the influx of chimpanzees and gorillas from Africa back in the 20s and 30s who did that, Rig. The poor suckers were just bush apes and they got taken advantage of in a terrible way by unscrupulous bosses in America who had them working for 10 cents a day plus rejected bananas that weren't good enough to see out of the grocery stores. Shocking exploitation! What you really needed was a Bill of Rights with some teeth in it and then young chimps like Chongo would have been paid a decent wage, same as any other American resident ought to get.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 07:58 PM

I'm all for paying people and chimps alike a fair wage for the work they do. If that were happening, we wouldn't be having the problems we are experiencing now--at least not in this magnitude.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 08:32 PM

Rig, I think your opposition to a public health option based on the idea that illegal immigrants will use it to the point of bankrupting it is a bit like looking at a hamster and yelling, "It's a rhinocerous!!"

Civilized countries like Great Britain, Japan, Taiwan, and Switzerland, the three countries T. R. Reid visited and analyzed in the Frontline documentary I mention in an above post, consider good health care to be a basic human right, which applies not only to their own citizens, but to someone who just blew in from Patagonia as well, and they have no problem with large numbers of tourists (some who come to their country specifically for that purpose) making use of their government-funded health care systems.

And their citizens spend a mere fraction of what Americans do for health care, whether it be through taxes or compulsory insurance coverage (which the government pays for if the individual can't afford it).

So be of good cheer. Your concern about illegal aliens bankrupting an American public health care system is baseless.

I cannot fault illegal aliens for coming here to try to eke out a better life for themselves and their families than they can manage in their own countries. If there is a fault, it is with the employers who hire them for a fraction of what they would have to pay an American worker—even though what the alien is being paid is often far more than what he or she could possible make at home.

Another consideration is that illegal aliens are often willing to do jobs that Americans, no matter how strapped, simply refuse to do. This I know for a fact!

I think Woody Guthrie wrote a few songs about that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 10:08 PM

Don - Actually, I don't recall any songs Woody wrote about illegal immigrants. Maybe you can point some out to us.

             I don't blame the people for coming either; I blame the US system of immigration and enforcement.

             I've never seen an illegal immigrant do a job a native born American wouldn't do. I've seen them do a lot of jobs cheaper. I doubt if Woody would think that was a good idea. I question where you get your facts.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 11:00 PM

A Woody Guthrie song about illegal immigrants: "Deportees (Plane Crash at Los Gatos)"

Then there's "Pastures of Plenty" too, I think. Guthrie wrote quite a few supportive songs about the fruit pickers, many of whom were Mexicans and Latinos.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 11:24 PM

Exactly so, Little Hawk. You beat me to it. Thanks!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Neil D
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 12:13 AM

The Frontline program Don firth mentioned was very informative. The five countries examined, each of which do a better job of caring for their people at a fraction of U.S cost, had quite diverse healthcare systems, but they all have this in common: It is against the law for insurance providers to make a profit on basic coverage and prices for services are fixed. This rational, humane and common sense approach has never even been on the table in the healthcare debate currently raging in the U. S. congress. Why? The ONLY reason that this country won't even consider an intelligent solution to our healthcare crisis is the billions being spent by insurance companies and "Big Pharma" on lobbying Congress, campaign contributions and propagandizing the American public.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 12:13 AM

Rig-
Illegals don't hire themselves---businessmen do. If you want to get rid of undocumented immigrants, crack down on the guys that hire them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 08:48 AM

I've never seen an illegal immigrant do a job a native born American wouldn't do.

No offense, but are you blind, or just not looking all that hard?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 09:07 AM

You're right, dick, the slimy employers are the problem now, just as they were during the 1930's when Woody sang about migrant workers. But the workers he was singing about were American nationals, not illegal aliens.

               And Greg F, name one job Americans wouldn't do that illegal's do.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 12:17 PM

Blowing up the World Trade Center's buildings # 1, 2, and 7?

No wait....it was American personnel who did that too...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 01:50 PM

LH - Just like Hispanics running leaf blowers in California, blowing up the WTC buildings was done by foreigners, but it wasn't meaningful employment.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 04:12 PM

You're quite sure of that, are you?

The part about "foreigners", I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 04:40 PM

My Gawd, Rig, this is a no-brainer—common knowledge to anyone who pays any kind of attention at all.

Migrant workers following the harvests. This is almost a cliché. But it is still going on. And last I checked, the vast majority were from Mexico or further south in Central America, and most of them are "illegals." The working conditions involve long hours (sunrise to sunset, no eight hour days), rushing to get the crop harvested (lest they spoil in the fields), and one of the main problems is constant exposure to pesticides. No nice house to go home to, they stay in shacks or tents on the farm where they are working. If lucky, a dollar or two a bushel for whatever the crop is, and no benefits. The only difference between this and "pickin' cotton" before the Civil War is that they actually do get paid, but other than that, there's damned little difference.

Same sort of thing goes on in eastern Washington State with apple harvests and various other crops.

Most Americans won't touch these jobs even if they're starving on the streets.

And no, this is not dipping into history, it's going on right now. Without the migrant workers, most of whom, as I say, are "illegals," you'd be paying one helluva lot more for the food you eat.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:04 PM

"Without the migrant workers, most of whom, as I say, are "illegals," you'd be paying one helluva lot more for the food you eat."

And there is the whole matter in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:49 PM

"Without the migrant workers, most of whom, as I say, are "illegals," you'd be paying one helluva lot more for the food you eat."

                And I'd be happy to pay it. But somebody would still be harvesting the crops.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:58 PM

Don't know what this has to do with the title of the thread, but in Arizona, the number of illegals crossing the border has diminished greatly due, primarily, to the diligence of our county sheriff. I haven't heard of any crops rotting the fields as a result of them not being harvested.

L.H.: Do my eyes deceive me, or are you under the mistaken impression that the 911 terrorists were American citizens?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 06:26 PM

Well, as I get it, Doug, Rig is opposed to any kind of health care public option because he's convinced that boatloads and buses full of illegal immigrants would come rushing into the U. S. to take advantage of free or inexpensive health care and break the country.

I gather from what you say that you're not fond of the idea of national health care and are satisfied with what you have (which, as has been pointed out, is government funded and paid for by taxes), but your reasons, though I can't agree, are nowhere near as far-fetched at Rig's.

His constant trotting out of his particular hobby horse is where the thread gets off the real subject.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 06:49 PM

I'll PM you about that, Doug. It would be too much of a departure from the rest of this thread, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 03:10 PM

Link

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 05:13 PM

But the workers he was singing about were American nationals, not illegal aliens.

HUH? For example, you ever hear Plane Wreck at Los Gatos?

Apparently no point in carrying this discussion on

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 06:22 PM

Juan, Roselita, Jesus y Maria. . . .

Good, solid Scandinavian names, those.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 08:18 AM

The origin of the names do not determine the nationality in the US. The immigration or citizenship status does. Besides, you can't talk about illegal immigration in the US, in any meaningful way, before the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 08:47 AM

Sure am glad to learn, Rig, that there were no 'meaningful' illegal immigrants before 1965.

As I said above - pointless.

Ta for now...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 10:05 AM

Pointless indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Art Thieme
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 01:12 AM

Way way back in this thread I delineated why Carol and I, and so many more like us, need the single payer system of public option to become a reality. Now it seems the health bills are so watered down that nothing at all will be changed except an increased tolerance for purveyers of anti abortion rhetoric. People, I, respectfully, leave the debate. What will be, WILL be. My mistake was to hope for a logical and humane outcome that favors inclusion over exclusion and charitable empathy over selfishness and maximization of personal and corporate wealth.

Goodnight people.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 03:14 PM

This is for your enlightenment and enjoyment, Rig.

CLICKY

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 03:56 PM

Washington Post:


A $300 billion deception
Congress plays make-believe, but the bill to taxpayers is real.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

HAVING PASSED a health reform bill that is, at least theoretically, paid for, the House of Representatives is poised this week to blow a quarter-trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget involving, you guessed it, health care. This is the so-called doc fix, to prevent scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians from taking effect.

Say you are a member of Congress who agrees that the cuts should be rescinded -- that physician payments shouldn't be reduced, that is -- but also believes that the payments should not add to the national debt? Under the rule governing the House debate, you won't be allowed to suggest any offsetting savings. Either you go for the doc fix and add massively to the deficit, or you torpedo the fix and wreak havoc in the Medicare program, with a 21 percent cut set to take effect Jan 1. Nice choice. It puts those who believe in both fiscal responsibility and averting these draconian cuts in an impossible situation.

By the way, don't be fooled by the incredible shrinking "cost" of the fix. The official Congressional Budget Office estimate used to be $245 billion over 10 years. Now it's $210 billion. In fact, the real hit to the budget will be closer to $300 billion. The lower CBO numbers stem primarily from the administration's move to change the rules about which physician payments are subject to the cuts. The administration proposed a regulation to exempt drugs administered in doctor's offices, such as chemotherapy, from the spending ceiling. That has the effect of making the cost of the fix look smaller, but it doesn't change the ultimate drain on the treasury: Medicare will end up paying out the same amount of money.

All of this is, to some degree, Medicare kabuki to placate the American Medical Association. The Senate doesn't have the votes to pass a permanent fix without paying for it -- though, of course, it also doesn't have the votes actually to pay for it. So while the House might pass the unpaid-for fix, it will likely die there. The result will be another year-long, or possible two-year, patch slapped on this mess. Finding the money to pay for the fix and, more to the point, cobbling together the political coalition to support it, is difficult. Which is why Congress and the administration have joined hands in the pretense that the doc fix has nothing whatsoever to do with health reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 04:01 PM

Washington Post:

Obamacare: Buy now, pay later

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, November 16, 2009

There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called "health-care reform." Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs. As we recover slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending and curb massive future deficits. The administration estimates these at $9 trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.

So what do they do? Just the opposite. Their far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system -- which Congress is halfway toward enacting -- would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.

The campaign to pass Obama's health-care plan has assumed a false, though understandable, cloak of moral superiority. It's understandable because almost everyone thinks that people in need of essential medical care should get it; ideally, everyone would have health insurance. The pursuit of these worthy goals can easily be projected as a high-minded exercise for the public good.

It's false for two reasons. First, the country has other goals -- including preventing financial crises and minimizing the crushing effects of high deficits or taxes on the economy and younger Americans -- that "health-care reform" would jeopardize. And second, the benefits of "reform" are exaggerated. Sure, many Americans would feel less fearful about losing insurance; but there are cheaper ways to limit insecurity. Meanwhile, improvements in health for today's uninsured would be modest. They already receive substantial medical care. Insurance would help some individuals enormously, but studies find that, on average, gains are moderate. Despite using more health services, people don't automatically become healthier.

The pretense of moral superiority further erodes before all the expedient deceptions used to sell Obama's health-care agenda. The president says that he won't sign legislation that adds to the deficit. One way to accomplish this is to put costs outside the legislation. So: Doctors have long complained that their Medicare reimbursements are too low; the fix for replacing the present formula would cost $210 billion over a decade, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. That cost was originally in the "health reform" legislation. Now, it's been moved to another bill but, because there's no means to pay for it (higher taxes or spending cuts), deficits would increase.

Another way to disguise the costs is to count savings that, though they exist on paper, will probably never be realized in practice. So: The House bill is credited with reductions in Medicare reimbursements for hospitals and other providers of $228 billion over a decade. But Congress has often prescribed reimbursement cuts that, under pressure from squeezed providers, it has later rescinded. Claims of "fiscal responsibility" for the health-care proposals reflect "assumptions that are totally unrealistic based on past history," says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general and now head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Equally misleading, Obama's top economic advisers assert that the present proposals would slow the growth of overall national health spending. Outside studies disagree. Three studies (two by the consulting firm the Lewin Group for the Peterson Foundation and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency) conclude that various congressional plans would increase national health spending compared with the effect of no legislation. The studies variously estimate that the extra spending, over the next decade, would be $750 billion, $525 billion and $114 billion. The reasoning: Greater use of the health-care system by the newly insured would overwhelm cost-saving measures (bundled payments, comparative effectiveness research, tort reform), which are either weak or experimental.

Though these estimates could prove wrong, they are more plausible than the administration's self-serving claims. Its health-care plan is not "comprehensive," as Obama and the New York Times (in its news columns) assert, because it slights cost control. Obama chose to emphasize the politically appealing path of expanding benefits rather than first attending to the harder and more urgent task of controlling spending. If new spending commitments worsen some future budget or financial crisis, Obama's proposal certainly won't qualify as "reform," as the president and The Post (also in its news columns) call it. It's more like malpractice: a self-inflicted wound.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 09:34 PM

Well, Don Firth, I was wrong. Woody did sing about illegal aliens, and he did it very well.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 12:34 AM

Robert J. Samuelson is a liar. The uninsured are not already receiving substantial medical care. That's why 45,000 people in the US die each year for lack of access to health care.

Those of us who are uninsured do not have access to any medical care other than what we can afford to pay out of pocket, which for most of us, is very little. We have a 40 percent higher risk of death before the age of 65 than people who are insured because of our lack of access to medical care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 02:29 AM

Don:"Well, as I get it, Doug, Rig is opposed to any kind of health care public option because he's convinced that boatloads and buses full of illegal immigrants would come rushing into the U. S. to take advantage of free or inexpensive health care and break the country."

That is exactly what happened in California...except it was boat loads. But the medical services, such as UCLA Olive View Hospital,in Sylmar, (one of the hospitals that received state funds), drastically, cut, and shut their outpatient services, and their emergency rooms were so crowded, that if you went there, for an EMERGENCY, one could easily wait at least 9 hours, or die waiting, (I was there a day when it happened), to be seen. The place was loaded with illegals, while U.S. citizens, were shoved to the 'back of the bus'. This was due to the Democratic Assembly, which voted in all sorts of bills that put the whole state funded health care at risk. Free clinics were also shut down, and so on and so forth, especially in the Southern California. Martin Luther King hospital in Long Beach was SHUT DOWN! Also, there have been acute shortages of nurses, and they have had a difficult time trying to fill the positions, because of the low pay! It was well known that pregnant Mexican women would flock to not only emergency rooms, but even to fire stations, to have their babies born in the U.S., so they(the children) could be 'natural' U.S. citizens, and the mothers would be eligible for California welfare, and AFDC, food stamps and the rest. This was going, and still is going on in massive numbers, and one of the factors in bankrupting the state!

I do believe that everyone in need, who needs medical attention, should get it, but this, and other stuff going on out there, and I'm sure, other places around the country, is a sham, and a disgrace! The quality of life in Los Angeles, has plummeted, to being the armpit of California. The state has gone from being the sixth largest economy IN THE WORLD, to being broke. Now just how is anyone going to pay for this???? ..with ideological pipe dreams...or wishful thinking?

Time to get real, and see that what went on in California, is able to happen across the country, as is usually the case.

There are other huge reasons that this 'Health' care bill sucks, BUT, the present system, I DO BELIEVE, needs massive reforming, but this stuff going on in Washington is NOT it!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 02:30 AM

Correction:..".except it was boat loads."..should read ...WASN"T boatloads"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 07:07 AM

You're right, Sanity, illegal immigration destroyed California, and it will destroy the rest of the country if something isn't done about it now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 01:15 PM

I dunno about illegal immigration destroying California, Riginslinger. I think it has more to do with people who think they should get government services without having to pay taxes, and with legislation-by-the-wealthiest in our initiative process. I think I'd blame the destruction of California on the selfishness of special interests and the abandonment of the idea of the Common Good. I really can't believe that illegal immigrants are the reason.

Sometimes I wonder why it's so horribly immoral for somebody to come into California from Mexico to find a job. Heck, I came to California in 1970 in search of the elusive California Girl. Is my pursuit more moral than theirs?

I will admit that California has gone downhill since I first saw it in 1970. Our parks and our schools are the most obvious indication.

As for the health care bill, I wonder. It may be correct that the Obama plan is doomed to inefficiency and eventual failure, because so much has been cranked in to satisfy special interests. For legislation to be effective, it has to be made for the Common Good and not for the selfishness of special interests.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 02:01 PM

CarolC

How many times have you been turned away at the emergency room?


FEDERAL LAW requires them to treat you to a stable condition ( well defined in previous posts) Thus, the medical care is there if they obey the law. IF NOT, how does this program help you, besides fining you for NOT having insurance?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 03:11 PM

Emergency rooms don't provide medical care. They only stabilize the patient and then send them home. So to answer the question - I have not ever been turned away from an emergency room. But despite numerous tries, I have never had any health problems addressed, much less corrected in any emergency rooms, either.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 03:15 PM

To expand on that point, if a patient shows up at an emergency room with cancer, the emergency room will only make sure that the person's vital signs are stable and then they will send them home. They will not treat the cancer. If a person goes to the emergency room in diabetic shock, the emergency room personnel will only stabilize that person's vital signs and send them home. They will not provide the patient with a program and medications for correcting the diabetes.

Anyone who thinks people can get their medical needs met in emergency rooms simply has not ever had to deal with not having insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 05:08 PM

GfS, can you link to articles or news stories that verify what you said in your post above? I'd also like to hear some Californians comment on what you have written.

My wife and I know a number of people who live in California (Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Cruz, Berkeley, several other places) with whom I correspond by e-mail and talk with on the phone. We talk about a number of things, including the Prop. 8 matter and the health care situation and illegal aliens, and although they tell me that there indeed are a lot of them there (doing jobs that nobody else wants to do), they've said nothing about what you seem to be claiming.

Verification, please? Then I'll ask some of my California friends and see what they say.

By the way, I used to live in California.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 06:53 PM

""The origin of the names do not determine the nationality in the US. The immigration or citizenship status does. Besides, you can't talk about illegal immigration in the US, in any meaningful way, before the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.""

Rig, the shit's up to your bottom lip man. STOP DIGGING!

Those "American Citizens", you believe were killed in the Los Gatos plane crash were BEING DEPORTED, GET THE PICTURE?

I live in the UK, and I figured out that the US government might have difficulty in deporting Americans to Mexico.

Wake up pal.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 08:02 PM

I can back up what Carol says. In June, between a severe back problem and an intestinal problem, I woke up sicker than a dog and in extreme pain. My wife called Medic One. They gave me a quick check to make sure I wasn't having a heart attack, then transported me to the nearby Swedish Hospital emergency room.

After drawing blood, asking a bunch of questions, and giving me both a CT scan and an MRI scan, they concluded that I wasn't dying. They gave me ten pain pills, told me to contact my regular doctor ASAP, and sent me home.

Except for the pain pills, I didn't feel a hell of a lot better when I left than when I went in.

Thank God I have insurance. When the statement came from my insurance company, they noted that the Swedish Hospital emergency room had billed them and they had paid for it all (!!), and also let me know that the little adventure had cost $14,000! And along with that was the notation that I had used most of what I was allowed for 2009.

And other than routine exams and the occasional illness, I don't go to the doctor that often!

So—emergency room treatment is not free! If my health insurance company hadn't picked it up, I would most certainly have been billed for it. And if I couldn't pay it, one way or another, somebody winds up paying for it!

I am following up with my regular doctor and a specialist, much of which the insurance company is taking care of. But not all. The intestinal problem has cleared up and I'm still dealing with a wonky lower back.

I'd hate to think what it would be like without the insurance!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 08:10 PM

"I'd hate to think what it would be like without the insurance!"

Uninsured Trauma Victims More Likely To Die

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 08:13 PM

By the way (and I hate to even mention this for fear that the idea may go wafting off into the ether), but the lower back problem comes and goes as a result of a scoliosis (a spinal curvature caused by weakened muscles on the right side of my spine as a result of polio at the age of two).

Because I have had back problems off and on all my life, according to current health insurance company practices, at any time, my insurance company could declare my back problem a "pre-existing condition" and refuse to pay for further treatment.

Lovely, wot!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 09:25 PM

"I dunno about illegal immigration destroying California, Riginslinger. I think it has more to do with people who think they should get government services without having to pay taxes..."


             Which is exactly what illegal immigrants do!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 10:18 PM

Well, Rig, I guess I've seen statistics that prove both sides of that argument. All I can say is that I have seen very little credible proof that illegal aliens have a negative effect on the economy of California. In general, if they can't find work, they go home.

But back to the main subject - I had really high hopes for universal health care; but this health bill isn't making anybody happy, because it tries to make too many people happy. Same thing happened to the Clintons. I had hoped the Obama Administration would have learned from the Clinton mistakes.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 10:38 PM

More and more I'm convinced that if the insurance companies have a say in the matter at all, we'll never have a civilized health care system in this country.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 03:23 AM

DonF:'GfS, can you link to articles or news stories that verify what you said in your post above? I'd also like to hear some Californians comment on what you have written.'

I lived, and had a recording studio in 'SoCal'. It was well documented in the L.A. Times, plus I WAS THERE, at the hospital, at the time when this happened. I don't have a link, at the moment, but if I researched it, I know I could easily provide one or a few dozen. Better yet, have one of your friends stop by Olive View Hospital, in Sylmar,(take the Roxford off ramp) pop into the emergency room, and have them tell you what they see. Ask them to talk to the people waiting for help. At that, there should be no question, at all to the validity of what I said. You can try to call KFI radio station, in L.A. Ask them for links, or where to get the story. They've been reporting on it for some time now.

CarolC:"If a person goes to the emergency room in diabetic shock, the emergency room personnel will only stabilize that person's vital signs and send them home. They will not provide the patient with a program and medications for correcting the diabetes.
Anyone who thinks people can get their medical needs met in emergency rooms simply has not ever had to deal with not"

In California, the outpatient clinics at the state run hospitals are linked to the emergency rooms. All you have to do, is show up, and after being seeing in the ER, you get re-routed, to the appropriate, services at the hospital. There are several different financial programs that anyone can qualify for, anything from pay what you can afford, all the way to free...free doctors services including free prescriptions, and follow up visits. To get into that, all one needs to do is show up, and that is primarily done at the ER's.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 03:40 AM

Most states don't have programs like the one you describe in California.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 07:50 AM

"Most states don't have programs like the one you describe in California."

             Which is exactly why California is in economic melt down. That wouldn't be the case if they were only taking care of legal American citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 09:26 AM

That wouldn't be the case if they were only taking care of legal American citizens.

Oh, please.

If I may quote: " Rig, the shit's up to your bottom lip man. STOP DIGGING! "

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 12:18 PM

GregF:"Oh, please."

Yes, but nonetheless, he is correct. Shouldn't we, as a nation, or a people, LEARN from our mistakes? Giving to the needy, is great, if you can do it, but the needy taking it before we have it, is yet a different matter. So is taking it from the people, BEFORE those can provide it, and bankrupting the system that can provide it. Also, there are LEGAL ways to come into the country, as well. So, if breaking the law, or at least that law, is okay, why can't we selectively choose one law, that WE can break, with impunity????

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 12:46 PM

Does anyone really think that the solution to an immigration problem is to limit their health care to emergency room treatment? What color was that herring?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 02:28 PM

In addition to the aforementioned herring, California is in "economic meltdown" duenot to "illegal immigrants" but to Ronald Reagan, the voodoo economics of the last 20 years, over-reliance on the housing market as an economic engine and the general economic collapse caused by wall street and commercial banking interests.

Of course, Mexicans are inviting targets as scapegoats....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 02:46 PM

And there are those of us here who do love our scapegoats, don't we!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 02:56 PM

And by the way, GfS, I am not going to take your word about your personal observations or that everything you say is well-documented but that I should look it up myself because you can't be bothered.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want to have any credibility at all, provide authoritative links to back up what you claim.

I hear other things about the health care situation in California and its causes from people whom I consider to be less biased and more reliable than you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 04:09 PM

"...illegal immigration destroyed California."

That'd be back in the 1840s wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 04:53 PM

By the way, where is Zorro these days?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 05:11 PM

Uh, the one who immediately comes to mind, Don, lives in the White House. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 05:24 PM

??

To obscure for me, Doug.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 06:09 PM

Not only obscure, its puerile and stupid. As one would expect.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 06:36 PM

Apparently Doug has come to the conclusion that there's someone living in the White House who is a pretty good man.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 09:51 PM

"...California is in "economic meltdown" due not to "illegal immigrants" but to Ronald Reagan, the voodoo economics of the last 20 years, over-reliance on the housing market as an economic engine and the general economic collapse caused by wall street and commercial banking interests."

                You're partly right, Greg, Ronald Reagan had a lot to do with it. But I would argue that it had more to do with the foolishness of using a peace time military build-up in lieu of a public works program than over-reliance on the housing market (which wasn't a good thing either, but it came later).
                However, the most disasterous thing Ronald Reagan did to the economy of California was to sign the 1986 Amnesty Bill. That was really devistating.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 12:37 AM

I posted a post with links, being as you asked for them, but somehow, it never made it up. This time, let's not let unrealistic idealistic political views get in the way of the FACTS!.
Note pages 7 and 8:

http://www.caph.org/publications/WhitePaperFINAL.pdf

californiahealthline.org/Articles/2004/4/14/...+Health

www.old.dhs.lacounty.gov/clinics/medcare.htm

www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/health.htm

maillists.uci.edu/mailman/.../calaaem/2003-May/000147.html

kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/...?DR_ID=17819&dr_cat=3

www.mattel.medsch.ucla.edu/introClinYears.asp

californiahealthline.org/articles/2003/2/6/...

kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/... - 89k

www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=290445&comments=true

#
[PDF]
On The Brink: How the Crisis in California's Public Hospital ...
188k - Adobe PDF - View as html
... many undocumented immigrants. With more than ... the department slated for closure two additional hospitals—Olive-View ... Natividad Medical Center, Olive View ...
www.caph.org/publications/WhitePaperFINAL.pdf

Just for starters.

By the way, the figure, in the first link, said "The cost of serving such high numbers of uninsured is driving the crisis in the county's public health care system. LAC DHS serves 800,000 people each year, most of them uninsured and many undocumented immigrants. With more than 100,000 inpatient stays, over 300,000 emergency room visits and 2
million outpatient visits system-wide annually, LAC..."
You do the math...almost 10,000 emergency room visits a day!!!!!    ('LAC' is L.A. County, ie. 'system wide')

We simply can't afford this!!...as I've said in an earlier post.

I've posted other links that show more...GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 01:31 AM

Not allowing undocumented workers to buy into a new health care system will guarantee two things... that their money will not be used to help support the system, and that they will continue to use emergency rooms for acute care.

If people want to save the health care system and the economy in California, the way to do it would be to allow undocumented aliens to buy into the health care system (when we finally get one).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 05:49 AM

""[snip]"The cost of serving such high numbers of uninsured is driving the crisis in the county's public health care system. LAC DHS serves 800,000 people each year, most of them uninsured and many undocumented immigrants.[snip]""

""[snipYou do the math...almost 10,000 emergency room visits a day!!!!!    ('LAC' is L.A. County, ie. 'system wide')

We simply can't afford this!!...as I've said in an earlier post.[snip]""

That's a hell of a stretch, even for a truth twister like GfS, so let's break it down and see what it actually says about the impact of illegal immigrants.

1. ""LAC DHS serves 800,000 people each year, most of them uninsured and many undocumented immigrants.""

Does anybody see where this is going?

GfS wants to make a case against healthcare provision for immigrants. The case requires that immigrants have a provable detrimental effect on the provision of said care, so we put together two figures and extrapolate from them.

The figures chosen are as follows:-

800,000, most of them uninsured. Fair comment, since the USA contains 47 million uninsured Americans. One might expect that California would have its share.

Many undocumented immigrants. How many? Well we don't know, but because we want it to be a lot, we'll work on the assumption that it is.

"HEY! How about that, we've proved that it's all down to illegal immigration, and we can't afford it, so let's just ditch the whole idea.

Then they'll all die or get better, who cares. Either way, problem solved.

And this from somebody who claims to be a qualified counsellor.

GOD HELP THE USA!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 08:24 AM

goD could help the USA, if there was such a thing, by simply preventing illegals from entering the country.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 11:15 AM

The term "Qualified counselor" doesn't really tell you anything about their background and training (in the US, anyway). In the US, people can be counselors who only have religious training, and their counseling is entirely from the point of view of their religion. And there are also counselors who are only trained in substance abuse, or social work. And some of them are guidance counselors in schools, and are trained for that.

Before accepting a person's claim of being a qualified counselor, I would want to know what kind of counselor they are qualified to be. If they say trained and licensed psychotherapist, I might take something they say on the subject of counseling seriously (and then again, I might not... there is no shortage of crappy counselors in the world).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 11:46 AM

You've got to be kidding me!!!

I never said that it was just undocumented(read: illegal) immigrants, were the root cause. So you don't like the message, so attack the messenger!! Idiots!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 01:28 PM

Well, GfS didn't dig quite so deep a hole. The quote was

LAC DHS [Los Angeles County Dept. of Health Services] serves 800,000 people each year, most of them uninsured and many undocumented immigrants.

So, it wasn't actually said that the immigrants were the center of the problem - it was mere innuendo. Riginslinger, on the other hand, seems completely convinced that the disposal of illegal immigrants would solve all our problems - and lead us through the pearly gates, to boot.

Yes, I would suppose that most people who go to county hospitals in Los Angeles, are uninsured. I've done interviews in the Harbor and USC/LA County Medical Centers, and I can tell you they aren't very comfortable places (although the USC/County building is an architectural masterpiece). People who have insurance, go to places that aren't so crowded and don't have such long waiting times. And if they have to go to a county hospital, most people don't go until they're past the point where they can be treated with less expensive remedies.

But the fact of the matter is that an awful lot of people in the US don't have health insurance; and though most taxpayers don't want these people to die or spread disease, they don't like paying for them to get first-class medical treatment. So, in general, people without health insurance get minimal treatment - and it's still very expensive. Seems to be a good argument for universal health care, so there won't be uninsured people who have to go to overcrowded hospitals.

Thanks for providing the information to prove my point, GfS.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 02:50 PM

Just logged on and I note that things seem to be pretty well in hand.

I did try to access some of GfS's "links," by trying to get to the sites through google (apparently GfS doesn't know how to make a link, nor, it would seem, accurately transcribe a URL—all you have to do is copy and paste from the address line, but I guess that was just too much bother for him/her—so much for credibility), but what I did find was similar to what others found: GfS is trying to make it sound as if all of the problems the California health care system is having are caused by illegal aliens, when in actuality, they are only a small part of the problem.

And there is this interesting little bit:

GfS, most of your "links" didn't work, and those that did triggered my anti-virus software and showed me a warning screen that said the site was unsafe, and asked me if I really want to proceed?

Are you really that petty?

Don Firth

P. S. The primary subject of this thread is U. S. Health Care Reform. But Rig, aided and abetted by GfS, has managed to "red herring" it into a discussion of one of Rig's favorite obsessions, illegal aliens, and blow it all out of proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 07:49 PM

It's a good thing that these illegal immigrants clearly must be built so that they never have infectious diseases that citizens might pick up...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 09:43 PM

"It's a good thing that these illegal immigrants clearly must be built so that they never have infectious diseases that citizens might pick up..."

             They aren't, of course, which is another good reason to keep them out!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 09:54 PM

Yup! That's right! Let's keep them dirty, diseased furriners outta our country and keep it safe fur us pure Amurcuns! Yessiree, Bob!!

(Like I said:   obsessed.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 03:25 AM

Don, that was a low blow, and a lie. Here, in your yahoo search engine, type in 'Olive View Hospital' & 'immigrants'. Go from pages 1 to 6..if you're even really interested at all...or ask 'Amos' who doesn't live too far from there, and ask him to take a look, and ask some patients, 'Is it always like this?' ..and."How long have you been waiting?' Amos, from where he is, can take the 101 to the 405 North which turns into the 5, (He'll know where that is)to the Roxford off ramp. Parking is still, to my knowledge, free. I've been there numerous times, and unlike you, KNOW what I'm talking about. Have him post what he sees and hears...That is, if you're even really interested, other than for the sake of arguing, and being manner-less. There were no viruses, but some addresses were longer than than I copied. The quote of 300,00o, was just for ERs..the patients for the outpatient clinics, after one is seen at the ER, is 2 million. Read it yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 01:11 PM

Just which expert for hire "respected economist" will they get, d'you s'pose?

Health bill foes solicit funds for economic study
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 2009

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an assortment of national business groups opposed to President Obama's health-care reform effort are collecting money to finance an economic study that could be used to portray the legislation as a job killer and threat to the nation's economy, according to an e-mail solicitation from a top Chamber official.

The e-mail, written by the Chamber's senior health policy manager and obtained by The Washington Post, proposes spending $50,000 to hire a "respected economist" to study the impact of health-care legislation, which is expected to come to the Senate floor this week, would have on jobs and the economy.

Step two, according to the e-mail, appears to assume the outcome of the economic review: "The economist will then circulate a sign-on letter to hundreds of other economists saying that the bill will kill jobs and hurt the economy. We will then be able to use this open letter to produce advertisements, and as a powerful lobbying and grass-roots document."

James P. Gelfand, the e-mail's author, confirmed its authenticity in a brief telephone conversation Sunday evening. He said the campaign against Democratic health legislation would only be launched "if that's what it found," but declined further comment and referred questions to a Chamber spokesman.

(more to the article at the link above)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 01:14 PM

more from that article --

Randy Johnson, the Chamber's senior vice president who handles health-care issues, called the e-mail "inartfully worded" and said the group never intended to suggest that the outcome of the study would be preordained.

"It's not saying that we would tell the economist how it should come out. Perhaps it wasn't artfully phrased," Johnson said. "It's based on what we think the economist will come out with. It doesn't mean we know what the economist will come out with."

Johnson said the Chamber always intended to be transparent about who funded the study. Asked whether the Chamber would release the study if it concluded that the health bill would increase jobs and improve the economy, he initially said, "We would cross that bridge if we came to it."

Moments later, he said, that on reflection, a positive finding from the economist would help to educate the business groups and would play a role in the position they take on the legislation.

"If it was like, oh wow, well, it doesn't have the kind of adverse impact we thought, that would educate us," he said.

(sound of vigorous backpedaling is heard...)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 01:26 PM

..."They aren't, of course...

Maybe I should start looking around again for that "ironic" font...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 02:32 PM

Neither a low blow nor a like, GfS. TRUE!

I tried to access a couple of the sites you recommended and got the virus warning, so I stopped!

Just to be sure that my A-V program wasn't giving me false positives, I tried a number of other sites and didn't get the warning. Only on a couple that you put up.

Is it any wonder I don't trust you?

And NO, it is not a lie! I invite others to check your post and try some themselves--provided they have a good A-V program on board and it's turned on.

Don Firth has left the building!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 02:50 PM

>101 to the 405 North which turns into the 5, (He'll know where that is)<

WTF? No, he won't.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 02:52 PM

Okay, on second thought, I'll be fair with you, GfS.

If someone else can reach the sites you recommend and can then provide a proper link or URL, I will be willing to try them again.

And pending that, later this afternoon, when I have time, I will, carefully, with shields up, try them again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 04:48 PM

">101 to the 405 North which turns into the 5, (He'll know where that is)<"


               Oh yes, I see now. Thank you so much!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 06:10 PM

All I was able to find googling "Olive View Hospital" and "immigrants" was a bunch of stuff that simply didn't relate, plus a number of articles about Michael D. Antonovich ("Republican member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors"), who seems to be having a real snit about undocumented workers. Not unlike some of the snits being thrown here. Hardly what I would call an unbiased source. He strikes me as a typical politician riding a currently popular hobby horse.

Anybody else know anything about this guy?

My apologies, GfS, if I jumped to conclusions, but I did try one of the sites you recommended—again—and got the same warning screen again. Perhaps you didn't intend that. Sometimes it just happens with particular sites.

But my immediate thought was of someone who infested this forum some time back (anybody remember the guy who named himself after two different guitar companies?) who took to the little prank of directing people to a possible computer screwing virus. He was a nasty piece of work, and eventually got himself banned for his general unpleasantness and his cute little tricks.

Don Firth

P. S. Once again, I stick in the sidebar that the subject of this thread is U. S. Health Care Reform. This matter of undocumented workers using a public health care system is strictly a side issue, or another issue entirely—not a deal breaker!

There are a couple of dozen countries on this planet with a national health care systems, some totally tax supported, some incorporating insurance companies but putting a limit on the profits they can make (and those insurance companies seem to regard it worthwhile to stay in business). What happened to "good old Yankee ingenuity?" Have we grown so inept as a country that we can't work out something even remotely similar to other systems, adopted by less wealthy countries, that work?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 06:16 PM

Are you referring to Kent Ovation, Don? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 08:09 PM

You remember ole Esteban Daisy-Rock, don't you, Little Hawk?    ;-D

Don Firth

(P. S. I'll PM you as soon as I get a chance to give the video a decent listen. Might be tomorrow.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 09:21 AM

And then there' this:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/health/policy/21grady.html

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 09:27 AM

Showdown at the OK Coral- 8:00 pm tonight!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 02:55 PM

Preventing illegals from participating in the reformed health care system will not solve the problem that is described in the article above about Grady Hospital. The best way to deal with that problem is to allow them to buy into the system like everyone else. That way their money is helping to support the system instead of the current situation in which they are only acting as a drain on the system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 03:05 PM

I would agree with that, Carol, except for the fact that they aren't suppose to be here in the first place. If they attempt to buy in, the vendor should be obligated to report them to the immigration authorities. So where would we go with that?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 04:28 PM

From the New York Times article:
". . . a national study by the RAND Corporation concluded that illegal immigrants account for about 1.3 percent of public health spending."

Los Angeles does not make a good example of the overall situation because the percentage of foreign born (both documented and undocumented) is far higher there than in other American cities, so singling out L. A. and claiming that it is illustrative of a nationwide problem is disingenuous.

And the same can be said for what might be called "hot spots" like Grady in Atlanta. These examples are not typical of the country at large.

Of course, it would be a lot easier and much less expensive if these folks who need dialysis would just stay home and die, like God intended.

As I say in my post at 20 Nov 09 - 06:10 p.m., just below; the P. S., second paragraph. Have Americans become so incompetent that we can't simple look at what other countries that are far less wealthy than we are, and learn by their examples? Or is it that we are so egotistical that we simply can't admit the even Taiwan has a better health care system than we have? One that is all-inclusive, as good as if not better, and far less expensive?

It's not as if we don't have the money and couldn't pay a bit more in taxes if needed to bring about a good health care system.

Americans spend $61 billion a year on soft drinks, $15 billion a year on bottled water, $8 billion a year on cosmetics, $41 billion a year on pets. They spend $9.4 billion a year on Starbucks' coffee alone. Medical spending on obesity-related conditions is estimated to have reached $147 billion a year.

[These figures derived by bringing up google and typing "Americans spend on—" and then "soft drinks," "bottled water," or whatever. Usually within the first few listings, you'll find the figure.]

And the undocumented worker matter is a side issue and does, in no way, justify abandoning the effort. It's a excuse and a red herring.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 05:26 PM

Not really, Don. All they have to do is put the E-veriy stipulation back in the bill. Then it becomes a non-issue and they can go on to more important elements of the problem, like tort reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 06:57 PM

The problem, Don, seems to be that the "haves" in US society tend to regard the "have nots" as indolent losers, and absolutely refuse to give up any portion of their wealth to help the less fortunate.

They would rather pay out $1000 dollars a month for rip off private care, than let go of a few cents in the dollar for comprehensive cover, that is until they develop an ongoing condition that their insurers reject.

Then listen to them whine.

Civilised health care systems don't HAVE any conditions which are not covered.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:30 AM

One more down. How many still to go?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 09:01 AM

Well, here comes the deals... Watch and see just how many of our tax dollars go to the states that are represented (if you can call that) by the knothead Dems... Makes me sick... I'd rather see Reid just tell them to "stick it", go for reconciliation with the House bill, put together a decent program and send it to the floor where it would only require 51 votes...

That would send a clear message to the foot-draggers and black-mailers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 12:55 PM

It's too late to put together a decent program.

We are going to get coverage to a lot more people, including through Medicaid. That's the main point. But the cost curve is going to go up both in terms of providers and administration. Program costs are going to go up; bureaucratic meddling is going to impair patient autonomy and choice on an increasing scope of demographics. Medicare benefits are going to be reduced in practice. Deficits will increase as tax rates will not go up to compensate for higher costs and subsidies, even if the politicians have the will to enact tax increases already proposed.

Insurance and employee benefits-related industries will get to stay fat and happy with expanded protections against state government and state courts.

Maybe it has to be this way but that's not exactly what I had hoped for when I voted for change.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:17 PM

On the subject of illegal aliens: They way I understand the current posture from Robert Pear of the NYT: The House version allows undocumented aliens to purchase on the exchanges without direct premium assistance. The Senate version doesn't allow them to purchase on the exchanges at all.

Proponents of the House version argue that this means no subsidies for illegals. Opponents argue that the rate setting within the exchanges is an indirect subsidy.

(If the House version of this passes with the trigger approach, so that only some states must permit undocumented aliens to buy coverage, that will be interesting.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:38 PM

Forbidding them to buy insurance on the exchange is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 09:45 PM

Except for the fact that they shouldn't even be here to buy it in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 10:25 PM

But they are here, Rig.

What do you suggest we do with them when they show up in an emergency room? I'm sure you wouldn't condone kicking them out in the gutter and letting them die. So what would you suggest?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 11:21 PM

If we wish to address immigration policy, then we should address immigration policy. Healthcare---though some seem to disagree--is about healthcare.

There seems to be an intellectual kink that tells us that problems we don't officially recognize don't really exist. Like Red China, for decades. Or Iran. Folks, it don't work. And never has.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 11:25 PM

Don;"...All I was able to find googling."

I said, and used 'Yahoo'

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 11:39 PM

I agree with Bobert. Already, the Senator from Louisiana, held out till a 'extra provision' was put in the bill in which that state gets a slug of money, for their vote. That's health care???

I'm NOT opposed, at all, to a health care bill, but this one sucks square eggs. Even the CBO says it is 'unsustainable'. Also the corruption from the insurance companies made this whole thing necessary. If the system was free of such corruption, it could be run right...but this administration does not have a very good rep, for 'transparency' and being 'right up front'. Neither was the last,..or the one before that, ..or before that, or before that,..or before that!
Come to think of it, we should think 'green', and recycle every congressional politician!...without the health care they voted in for themselves, which certainly doesn't look like the bill they're trying to shove at us!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 11:57 PM

Actually, the CBO says that it will reduce the deficit by many billions of dollars over the next ten years.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 12:07 AM

Get updated, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 03:18 AM

That's the latest from the CBO on the Senate bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 07:44 AM

"But they are here, Rig. What do you suggest we do with them when they show up in an emergency room?"

             Treat them, bill them, pursue judgements, garnish wages, sick the IRS of them, and make life so miserable for them they go back where they came from.
             After all, that's what happens to American citizens who don't pay their medical bills.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 03:29 PM

GfS, I tried Yahoo and that's when I kept caming up with the virus warnings. I've always had good luck finding stuff with google. Provided it's there to find.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 03:37 PM

"Treat them, bill them, pursue judgements, garnish wages, sick the IRS of them, and make life so miserable for them they go back where they came from.
             After all, that's what happens to American citizens who don't pay their medical bills."

Very American. That's why we need to look at other health care systems. Because apparently we Americans haven't the brains—or the humanity—to try to come up with a decent system on our own.

Okay, so be it! There are lots of good examples out there. We apparently need to take a look at them. A few Americans have suggested this, but the Powers That Be (the insurance companies in particular) heap abuse on them.

The undocumented worker whine is still a red herring. It's a separate issue.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 07:16 PM

I don't imagine Americans aren't quite capable of coming up with a decent system.

However for some reason large numbers of Americans seem to have convinced themselevs that they aren't capable.

It's a quite remarkable lack of self-belief, which seems totally at odds with the way Americans generally seem to assume that they can do things better than anyone else. (And often enough they may be right.)

Where does it come from?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 07:22 PM

It comes from the realization that America can't afford to provide healthcare for the world. That's why illegal immigration is not a separate issue.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 07:48 PM

". .  .  from the realization that America can't afford to provide healthcare for the world. . .  ."

That's just plain unrealistic, Rig. Ain't gonna happen, for one simple reason:   if you'll look at the ratings by the WHO and other such agencies (longevity, infant mortality, cure rate for various diseases and conditions, preventive medicine, etc.), compared to other countries, the quality of health care in the United States is not that great. There are countries where the quality of health care is considerably better than that in the U. S., so even if it were free here, other countries (where it is essentially free) would be a better choice.

####

And Kevin, I know that Americans are quite capable of coming up with a national health care system open to all and of the highest quality, but due to special interests, political patronage, and inhumane disregard for the general welfare in favor of egregious profits, an awful lot of butt has to be kicked and kicked hard before it will ever happen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 08:22 PM

The belief is the result of decades of propaganda and brainwashing by the corporate elite.

The US is the ultimate fascist state, because the art of propaganda and brainwashing has been so perfected here, not only do we not know that we are being propagandized and brainwashed, but we actually think we are the most free people on earth, while in reality, we are slaves and the corporatocracy is our slave master.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 09:16 PM

I can't argue with that, Carol. Getting factual information into the hands of the public is 90% of the battle.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 10:00 PM

I always appreciate and respect your thoughts, Mr. Firth, but as a complicated matter we can't really prove, I think the newer system will still be, like now, better than than that of any other country based on *overall* quality. Others are more egalitarian, and we're taking a step in that direction. Plus, a lot of people will feel less enslaved to their current jobs. And though I haven't noticed it factored in, a lot less of the healthcare funding will be shifted through bankruptcy, one of the most bizarre current phenomena.

(Healthcare funding, remember, is not "evaporation" of money - it still goes into circulation and the money multiplier. It's the ineffeciencies (and unfairness) of the tidepools and eddies that matters most.)

I hope that doesn't sound callous to Art Thieme and others who may still not get the benefit of full fairness.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 10:19 PM

What I mean, for example, as much as I am (1) disgusted by the expanding bureaucracies, continued inefficiences, and ongoing "enslavement" within the (inefficient) employer-provided system, and (2) annoyed by false/over-inflated arguments such as "eliminating waste," "outcomes research" and "holding insurers accountable," if we are going to shift a lot of money from unecessary and unfair bankruptcy to the federal deficit, and unfair denials and discontinuation of coverage as well, while we simultaneously expand access to lower income groups, I approve of that and I guess I shouldn't bitch so much about my pet peeves.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 01:42 AM

Here Don:(and anyone else):

#
LA County Dept of Health Services-Community Health Plan
Important Notice for Immigrants. YOU CAN GET NEEDED MEDICAL CARE AT NO COST ... 60 at County Hospital Outpatient Clinics except Emergency Room visits ($50 for ...
www.old.dhs.lacounty.gov/clinics/medcare.htm - Cached

#
Immigrant Health Tab Disputed
Olive View-UCLA, King/Drew and Harbor UCLA medical centers, said Chief Medical ... provide emergency care for illegal immigrants, shifting the cost to the hospital. ...
www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/health.htm - Cached

#
Los Angeles Times Looks at County Report on Cost of Health ...
... emergency and follow-up inpatient services at County-USC, Olive View-UCLA, King/Drew ... hospital system and laws mandating treatment for undocumented immigrants, ...
maillists.uci.edu/mailman/.../calaaem/2003-May/000147.html - Cached

#
kaisernetwork.org
... and follow-up health care for undocumented immigrants. The ... emergency and follow-up inpatient services at County-USC, Olive View-UCLA, King/Drew ...
kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/...?DR_ID=17819&dr_cat=3 - Cached

#
Grim Health Scenario for Poor Seen With Cuts - Medicine ...
Only Antelope Valley Hospital agreed to accept new Medi-Cal patients--those low ... Even those who made it to Olive View would face interminable waits because of ...
articles.latimes.com/1995-07-03/local/... - 54k - Cached

#
County-USC 'Annex' Is Put on Hold - Los Angeles Times
... hospital has ... be an HMO for illegal immigrants without bankrupting the entire county, ... add beds at Harbor-UCLA, Olive View-UCLA and Martin Luther King/Drew ...
articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/24/local/me-usc24 - 54k - Cached

#
Antelope Valley Officials Criticize Decision To Proceed with ...
... Hospital Readmissions ... a move that will allow Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Harbor-UCLA ... Debate Roiled by Concerns Over Coverage for Undocumented Immigrants ...
californiahealthline.org/articles/2003/2/6/... - Cached

A County Dept of Health Services-Community Health Plan
Hospital Inpatient Care. Eye Examinations and Prescription Glasses ... Children who are U.S. citizens, nationals or eligible qualified immigrants ...
www.old.dhs.lacounty.gov/chp/hfp.htm - Cached


Since I first posted the original post with the links, its changed a lot because of some news story, which I included.But, nonetheless, I found these, opened them, and no viruses.


Here's some more:

From the L. A. Times

1. 40% of all workers in   L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County   are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8 Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

10... In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.

(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County . )

(All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth(and over 90% of California ,   Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens .

We are fools for letting this continue.

This is only one State.................

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 01:55 AM

Oh, please, come on.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 01:58 AM

Thank you Heric, my mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 02:25 AM

You've got to watch out for those tea partier e-mails at least as much as the MoveOn etc stuff.

And two other things about that trillion or so over ten years and the money multiplier: Keep in mind that Medicare expenditures this year are about $484 billion. A trillion or so over ten years has a stimulus effect that is for more dispersed and sustained than a trillion or so to investment bankers and their friends over a year or two.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 07:36 AM

So who do you believe, the newspaper or the blog? The truth it hard to get at sometimes, but Sanity's article captures the trend if not the actual numbers.
                   That's why California is a basket case now, and the rest of the country will follow if illegals are not prevented from accessing public programs.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 11:22 AM

You try as hard as you can to resist the flaw we all have hard-wired into our brains to be receptive to data that fits or affirms preconceptions, and to dismiss or diminish contrary data. This is absolutely one of the biggest problems in the larger health care debate, and the reason why, similarly, any and all anecdotes should be resisted with all our mental might. That's hard to see and nearly impossible to practice.

(Paradoxically, even though those outcomes researchers start from the high position, it's their absence from the front lines that makes them prone to erroneous conclusions.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 11:41 AM

My sister still lives out in L.A. To say the least things are VERY bad out there, and I'm not at all sure the figures are that far off, at all.
I'm not against immigrants, or Mexicans. Jeez, we used to go down there almost every weekend, but what we have seen in recent years, is astounding! When our earlier immigrants came to America, they fled Europe in hopes of finding a place where there was freedom from religious oppression, where people could worship God, in they ways they chose, and freedom of speech, and assembly; to be able to find a place, where they could follow and pursue their dreams, and build a future. They had very little to work with, but their drive to build a place where a tyrannical government, of kings and religious leaders who dominated their lives, and that of their families, oppressed them to the point,to seek and build a better lives for themselves, and their families. So they built this nation where the principle goal was to be FREE, to pursue those ideals, and they fought, and died for that freedom. They didn't immigrate over here, for free handouts, welfare, medicare, food stamps, and state social programs! Matter of fact, those social programs came into being later, as a 'safety net', to provide for those fellow countrymen, and their families, when they met hard times. It was never meant to be a way of life, or an enticement for votes, to keep the political hacks in power! My, how things have changed!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 11:45 AM

and, more specifically: Trends lead to projections and projections are usually crap. If there is a trend towards higher relative cash transactions in LA, you can't allow yourself to reasonably believe it will hit 40% of the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 01:24 PM

Heric, I wasn't sure if your post was in response to mine or not, but being as you broached the subject, when California itself was the world's seventh largest economy, and a lot of employers out there hire illegals, for cheaper wages, especially in the construction trades, and hospitality industry, and those cash wages are not being recycled into our economy, but being sent back to Mexico, via Western Union, along with not being taxed, and when those same people are burdening our social programs, it certainly does hit the economy. Whether its 40% or 50%, or 25%, it has become a drain and burden for those honest citizens who simply wish to provide for their families! It effectively removes monies from the base, from which supports the livelihoods, that people rely on. Economy IS the movement of money. When money circulates slow, or their is less cash available, the economy is slow. Removing money from the base, so their is less of it circulating, taking up those jobs that we've been told, 'Americans don't want'(by the way, ask anyone who can't find a job now, if that's even true), to further a political agenda, is that same political agenda working AGAINST THEIR CONSTITUENTS who they were supposed to 'represent'...which of course, is another folly, when the populace is by in large, against being taxed higher, out of work, nor denied medical services because it is unaffordable. That being said, health care reform should address the ills that plague the way this present system is being abused, and wrought with fraud, overcharged, frivolous lawsuits, and corrupt insurance practices. Simply putting the insurance companies out of commission, is not the only solution. This bill, that is up before the Senate now, is not an answer, just a bigger problem, both on the economy, and our quality of health care. Yes, absolutely something NEEDS to be done, but this very unpopular, bill is not it. The way I hear it, is that those 'representatives' who are backing it, will be out of office next elections...so they say...but who knows, that's what the 'other side' says, but all the polls are indicating that the majority of people in this country are opposed to it, but that seems to be falling on deaf ears...why?...Because of corruption????...or ideological mental illnesses?...or bribery for a vote to support??...Time will tell, but let's hope before its not before its too late!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 01:50 PM

Sad obsession...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 01:59 PM

When our earlier immigrants came to America, they fled Europe

???????


When was there a time in this country (or even landmass, for that matter), when the people who immigrated here only came from Europe?

This statement really does show a certain mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 02:40 PM

CarolC: "When was there a time in this country (or even landmass, for that matter), when the people who immigrated here only came from Europe?"

From anywhere. You don't see a lot of folks swimming to Cuba, do you? Africa?. China? defecting in droves to Russia?? Sneaking INTO Mexico?? Fleeing to Venezuela for asylum? Maybe nice places to visit, but....

McGrath:"Sad obsession..."

What? History??..or Facts????

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 02:50 PM

So our European ancestors came here for all sorts of high-minded, idealistic reasons. But Mexicans and Central Americans et al, come here only because of the "freebies?"

What "freebies?"

I dunno. I tend to think they come here to try to make a better life for themselves, not unlike our European forebears.

[Not to forget Carol's valid point that Europeans were not the only immigrants early on.]

Why is it that when I read things like what GfS and Rig keep posting, I get visions of signs like "Whites Only" and "No Irish Need Apply?"

Reality check:   Had it not been for folks like Chinese and Irish immigrants (and others), the railroad system that glued commerce together in this country early on would have taken a lot longer to build. Without migrant farm workers (many of whom are undocumented workers from south of the border), food would be one helluva lot more expensive.

And back in the early 1970s, when Boeing laid off vast amounts of their work force and unemployment in Seattle reached about 15% (and the famous roadside billboard appeared that said, "Will the last person to leave town please turn off the lights?"), I don't recall seeing any of the newly unemployed and rather desperate folks even consider dashing over to eastern Washington to harvest apples and asparagus, even though the jobs were available. Nor do I see any of the current unemployed and/or homeless.

Work in the dust and hot sun from dawn to dusk and get paid for piece work—by the bushel basket? Apples require running up and down a ladder all day. Asparagus (and a lot of other crops) require bending over or squatting all day.

Even in people who are really on their beam's end, I don't detect much enthusiasm for that sort of work.

Don Firth

P. S. Besides, I don't think the primary reason that illegal immigrants come to this country is because of our wonderful health care system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 03:56 PM

I suppose if all the immigrants went home there'd just be Native Americans, including most "Hispanics", and African Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 04:28 PM

Well I think you'd have to lose the Dene, Apaches, Navajos, and certainly the Aleuts and Inuit, i.e any of the non-Clovis.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 04:34 PM

Guest from Sanity, read my post again. As I'm confident you are aware, I am addressing the implication in your post that our earlier immigrants came exclusively from Europe. Asking me how many other countries they were emigrating to besides this one is, in this context, a non sequitur and has no relevance to my post, or the part of your post that it addresses.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 06:51 PM

There you go again, Don, twisting around what I said and turning it into some dumb ideological agenda, whether it applies or not, then arguing a point you make up, to refute what you imagined I said. Nonsense!

And to all the others, the early immigrants, when they came here, it wasn't in search for freebies. Nobody provided them, except people who could help each other out, and even still, anyone thinking they could live off their neighbors gratuities, was seen as a lazy mooch! Even the Native Americans did not tolerate those in their tribes that wouldn't pull their weight, (I suppose Little Hawk could expound on that!), moreover, I don't believe they had a culture, where the laziest of them, would or could freeload off the rest of the tribe, and send the 'proceeds' anywhere outside of the tribe!!...then make excuses about his or her 'right' to do so!! So that argument is absolutely absurd, and is only an indication of how far out in left field some of you will go to, to present asinine arguments!

And, by the way, I DID post that the immigration issue was NOT the whole issue about health care reform,..but once again, some one picks out one phrase, or sentence, to expound their derailed subject, and throw off the thread. You'd think by now(think??), that some of you others would get hip to that tactic, and call it for what it is!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 07:38 PM

GfS, the "dumb ideological agenda" you object to so strenuously happens to be what it's all about, whether you acknowledge it or not.

And as far as pulling their own weight is concerned, you simply don't know what kind of weight these people pull:    following the crops and slaving away in the fields, doing janitorial work (of the swabbing out toilets variety), mowing lawns and doing garden work—the women, if not working in the fields alongside the men - and the children - working as maids, cleaning houses, doing laundry, and such. But not "living in" maids. No such luxury.

And if not in the fields or as maids and laundresses, in the garment industry. A large number of such women died in a fire in a garment factory some years ago because the building failed to meet the local fire codes, and the women were locked in and when the fire started, they couldn't get out of the building. It made the national news. But nothing was ever done about it. These were women who were getting paid pennies for piecework and having to work extremely long shifts just to make a few dollars.

But who gives a shit? They were only illegal immigrants, right!??

But that problem has been partially taken care of these days. We've exported it. How long has it been since you've bought a piece of clothing that wasn't made in China, India, or Brazil?

"Dumb ideological agenda?" To you perhaps! But such callous disregard for the welfare of other human beings—whether undocumented or not—especially in the name of maximizing profits, tends to fill me with disgust.

Don Firth

P. S. Once again, I remind you that this thread is about U. S. Health Care Reform, not about illegal immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 08:21 PM

Don:"P.S. Once again, I remind you that this thread is about U. S. Health Care Reform, not about illegal immigration."

No shit, Sherlock!
And as far as not caring about immigrants, you're wrong again. That being said, there are legal ways to enter this country, and to be accountable for one's labor and taxes, and benefits. Coming in, by ignoring the laws, of how to do it LEGALLY, could be done legally, that is unless you intend to break more laws, and use benefits, including medical, 'under the radar'. So, i guess you think this is about 'equal rights';, so to make it equal, do you think we should all get to pick our favorite law to ignore, with impunity????

As far as, another element, which you seem to disregard, before one can build, or make certain improvements, the liberals instituted, new fees taxes) for 'impact studies' and reports to be made, before one can legally proceed, which has merit, right?? Did anyone even consider the impact of 14 million people who suddenly, illegally, and unknown, as to where to house them or feed them, appear upon the infrastructure, including medical care, upon the people who live here????...that we now have to pay for???? Get real!! Talk to your friends in L.A. Get a clue, before you spout off nonsense that you expect the 'other guy' to pay for!..and put up with burgeoning crime levels, and unemployment for the very ones footing the bill!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 09:13 PM

Well, I guess one solution,would be for Mexico to annex California...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 09:48 PM

'Why is it that when I read things like what GfS and Rig keep posting, I get visions of signs like "Whites Only" and "No Irish Need Apply?"'


                   Because you're a victim of the corporate controlled media.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 10:27 PM

Hey Rig, Not only are you right, but they don't know it. That being said, so is the far right, as well. Right wing and left wing, are on the same bird. If you use common sense, you catch crap from both sides!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the music goes nowhere, like it did before, because, that same corporate/political fed mentality also stunts the creative drive.............(and they think I'm not rooting for them!?!?.....jeez!!!)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 11:51 PM

"'Why is it that when I read things like what GfS and Rig keep posting, I get visions of signs like "Whites Only" and "No Irish Need Apply?"'


                   Because you're a victim of the corporate controlled media."

Nope. If you knew me better--if you knew me at all--you'd know how ridiculously that statement is.

Need I invoke the "B" word again?

I shouldn't really need to because it's obvious to everybody.

Don Firth

(Nighty night. I'm through here for today)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:12 AM

Don Firth:"(Nighty night. I'm through here for today)"

And to you,(and this may shock you)..his finest piece, though not his most acclaimed...(shame) ENJOY!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuGvpPVk0tY&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:42 AM

The earlier (European) immigrants actually did come for the freebies. And they took those freebies from those who were here before them. The freebies they came for and took were the land of this country and its resources.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 01:52 AM

CarolC:"The earlier (European) immigrants actually did come for the freebies."

Yeah, they stepped off their boats, and immediately headed for the food stamp office!...where they met a social worker who pointed the way to the free clinic, so the women could have their children, so they could be naturalized Native Americans. Soon, they could go to the welfare tee-pee (Ti-pi), where they lied about where they came from, so they could get AFDC. Not long after that, they took their welfare wampum baskets, and exchanged them for a new set of Guild Phosphor Bronze strings, and taught the Indians 'Kumbayah', and dreamt up folk songs to sing of their many trials and tribulations, and equal rights, for homosexual pioneers, and homesteaders. they learded C F G and Em, and wrote protest songs, of how they were so noble, because they evaded the draft, and even convinced each other that they objected to war, when after all they were just afraid, that they'd be missing all the fun after high school. Ever since, they managed to convince others that they had an education, and that they could cut and paste, on their slates, to prove intellectual and scientific studies to justify why they never went on to to undertake a serious study of music, and why they were such 'beautiful' people bringing peace and love, and never having to grow up, so they lived in the past. They totally denied they were spoiled brats, who rebelled at authority, because they felt the were entitled to be cared for like children, all their lives............which brings us up to date, to now...where they can't get health care on their own, unless the government prints more fiat money to pretend they can have anything they want, without producing a thing, to even warrant it. Hey, pass it over here.....
You mean something like that??

P.S. Oh, I know..I just don't understand!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 01:56 AM

Correction......"they learded " should read, "They learned.."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 01:56 AM

No, they came and proceeded to take all of the land and resources that belonged to the people who were here before them, committing genocide in the process. They didn't need food stamps or welfare, because they were living off of stolen goods.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 04:01 AM

Carol, All cynicism, aside, we know that the Native Americans were screwed over, an issue that actually is very close to me, being as I live with the Tewa, and have had very close relations with several of them, even have a given name from them, and speak some of the language. The horror stories, about how the Spanish came up, and what they did to the people in the pueblo is heartbreaking, while looking for gold. Someday, perhaps on another thread, I'd share them with you.

Still, getting back to the topic of the thread, this health care bill is wrought with nonsense, and political quackery. I think it was you, that I shared an exchange, a long time ago, about being able to get reduced rates for health care from certain doctors, for cash, at a largely reduced price, because of the insurance paperwork, and lag of reimbursement from the insurance companies, and/or medicare, so this issue too, I've been dealing with, long before anyone even heard of Obama, or the bill he supports...if you remember. Yes we need reforms. But this bill, and what its about, you will find, is not even close to getting comprehensive health care to those who need it.

As I mentioned, in this thread earlier, I've been to Olive View Hospital, which largely is state funded, through grants to UCLA. That, with all the overburdened workload, is one fantastic hospital!!!
The illegal immigrant issue, and those exploiting the emergency rooms, and outpatient clinics there, whether citizens or not, has threatened their ability to give services, and keep their doors opened. However, unless you have SEEN what I'm talking(or typing) about, with your own eyes, you won't be able to get a good grasp of just what I'm relaying to you.

That's why I suggested, that someone who lives near there who would actually take the time to go there, and see, and talk to the patients, especially those who are citizens, waiting and needing help, and jump back on this thread, and report what they observed, no matter what their political bent, will a lot of you even come close to understanding the problem, short of the political hack 'journalism' that is being used to promote this bill! That's all. Simple as that!

Yes, as I've said before, we need health care. Yes, we need government assisted heath care. This bill, is not it. Furthermore, any political quack representative who votes for it, should be booted out of office, at the next election! Any politician who receives financial 'incentives' for their vote, should be removed from office and prosecuted!!..as soon as possible!..That's how bad it is!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:54 AM

"...they came and proceeded to take all of the land and resources that belonged to the people who were here before them,..."


                  Who took them from the people who were here before they came, and on and on and...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 08:21 AM

"Hey Rig, Not only are you right, but they don't know it. That being said, so is the far right, as well. Right wing and left wing, are on the same bird. If you use common sense, you catch crap from both sides!"

                   Yes, Sanity, you are exactly right. President Eisenhower made the observation--"Too far to the left and too far to the right of the middle of the road are the gutters."

                   While the corporate media has the population engaged in this --left vs. right-- food fight, they are stealing the public blind, and few of us seem to notice.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 09:29 AM

Oh well, the immigration 'problem' will be solved in a few years, as Lou Dobbs is considering running for president and.... **cough**...**giggle**

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 10:15 AM

It wasn't just the Spanish screwing over the Indians, though. All of the Europeans who came here did that.

Riginslinger, while there was competition for access to land and resources by the various peoples in the Americas before the Europeans "discovered" America, it wasn't in the form of the destruction of entire societies and the absolute theft of two entire continents, which is what the Europeans did when they showed up. But the point wasn't who displaced whom, but rather, that the idea that the earlier European immigrants were not looking for any handouts is entirely erroneous, because that's precisely what they were looking for.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 10:55 AM

Which (if you buy the logic) is what the Asian invaders were looking for when they crossed the ice-bridge and took over two continents from the people who preceeded them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 10:58 AM

" With all of the comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, young people are beginning to think that the allied powers defeated Nazi Germany because Germany had too much health care."

— Jim Hansen
Proposed extensions of Godwin's Law

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:00 PM

CarolC, I know, that. I was merely agreeing with you, about the Native Americans. I am familiar with the Tewa, so I gave you that post. Rig is also correct.
So, if you are likening the illegal immigration problem to the invasion of the Europeans, I guess you are proposing that the citizens fight back, like the Native Americans???????

Sheesh, then we'll REALLY need health care!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:49 PM

You know, when a couple of rabid bi—   [No, Little Hawk gets upset when people use that word, no matter how accurate it is.]   When a couple of people with their own emotional and prejudicial axes to grind accuse me of being "a victim of the corporate controlled media" when they are the ones who are, themselves, spouting the Fox News Service line, and then they go on to do a totally bogus rewrite of history, not to mention reinterpretation of anthropology, in an attempt to support their position, I find that the debate has degenerated to the intellectual level of a schoolyard squabble combined with a clumsily conceived con-job, and is no longer fit for the participation of thinking adults.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 04:06 PM

Sigh. Then I suppose that means that we have heard the last from you, anyway, on this particular thread, right Don? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 05:59 PM

Well, Doug, considering that this thread was originally about health care reform and Rig and Gfs have managed to twist it into a vehicle for expressing their intolerance of "furriners," I'd say the thread has long since jumped the shark.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:17 PM

Not a single post on this page about health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:20 PM

My point exactly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:20 PM

I did two at 10:00 whaddaya talking about. I even convinced myself to support the damn healthcare bill(s). (I find mudcat is good for talking to myself.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:28 PM

"Not a single post on this page about health care."


                Of course there is. Illegal immigrants are bad for your health.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:45 PM

I guess, Don, it depends upon one's definition of "page". :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:58 PM

Click on the numbers opposite the thread and up comes a list of pages, 50 posts a page. And heric's weren't on this one, which now has 30 posts.

"Illegal immigrants are bad for your health." Says it all doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 09:38 PM

Huh??

Hey Don, Did you click the link??..and if so, how'd you like it?

Got another beautiful piece as well. I might post it later.
Regards,...GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:10 PM

'"Illegal immigrants are bad for your health." Says it all doesn't it?'

                   Yes it does. At one time, human population growth and the migration that went along with it went pretty much unnoticed, but today, with almost 7 billion people in the world, a little growth here and a little growth there adds up to total annihilation of the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 12:05 AM

I don't know who the original quote was from, about, '"Illegal immigrants are bad for your health", but the key word here is 'ILLEGAL', not immigrants...to be fair.
But to keep things straight, the thread is about health care.

As noted, in my links, earlier, the problem is many illegals are afraid to get health care, in fear of being deported. The problem with that is, if they are carrying a contagious disease, it has more time, if untreated to spread. You may remember, the first cases of 'swine flu' were reported in Mexico City, about three or four months ago. Anyone who has done much traveling abroad knows about getting some shots, before getting a passport. There are advantages of doing things legal, and ones health should be one of those concerns.

Ever been in, let's say a store, during flu season, and the feeling you get when some clown coughs in your direction, without turning away, or covering their mouths?? Why should that feeling be any different when people come into a country, our country, illegally, bringing with them God only knows what, and then are afraid to get heath care, for fear of being forced to leave?

I think that most Americans, being pretty good folks, welcome immigrants, and are proud of this country, when asking them, "How do you like it here?"..anticipating glowing remarks from a visitor.
So let's not confuse anyone who is opposed to immigration, with
ILLEGAL immigration. There is nothing bigoted about people resenting the fact that those people are resented and suspected, because at the get go, they are showing a contempt for our laws!!

On the other hand, I don't think there is a person in here, including myself, who knowing that a LEGAL visitor was sick, and/or needing medical attention, would hesitate to directing them to those services, perhaps even driving them to it, if necessary!
We are, in fact, known for being, not only arrogant people...but also a generous people!!!!

By in large, generous people resent being taken advantage of!!
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 05:33 AM

"Some of my best friends are..."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 08:17 AM

Contagious?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 08:53 AM

Some of my best friends are Mudcatters.

Whew! It took courage to say that, lemme tell you. And I wouldn't just say it in front of anyone. No sir. One has to be careful about that sort of thing. You never know who may be listening.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 11:50 AM

....or reading....or even comprehending fully, what they read!
Yoho, Little Hawk!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 12:29 PM

Let me get this straight. At present, all these ill eagles are getting emergency room care. Which costs they seem to default on regularly. So it's against our own selfish interests to let them purchase health insurance. How in Hell does that compute?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 01:36 PM

Okay, GfS, I tried your link.

Carla etude/Tonight (Part 2) - Elton John with the ROH.

Very nice. But Elton John is another singer who sings like he has a mouthful of cabbage and I could only understand about one word out of five. Was there some arcane message you were trying to send me, GfS? If so, I'm afraid it got lost somewhere.

Ten guests coming for Thanksgiving, so I'll be gone for the rest of the day. When (that is, IF) I come back to this thread, I hope it's veered back to it's original subject. This whole illegal immigrant shtick is a red herring and belongs in the "death squad" category of lies and diversionary tactics used to try stifle rational discussion and kill health care reform.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 01:51 PM

Three hundred million people in the USA. Perhaps 14 million haven't got a legal right to be there. Big deal.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 02:29 PM

Yeah there's some perspective. Personally, I don't care much whether illegals get to buy full policies but I certainly want their children to have full access. I do agree with Rig to the extent it is wrong to have social and economic policies that intentionally take advantage of illegal status, but a "moderator" screamed I was racist for saying so. The subject drowns out substantive discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 02:43 PM

Absolutely right, Don. I always thought he sounded like he was singing with a mouthful of mashed potatoes....there are other versions of that. When he was younger, he sang it cleaner, but nonetheless, it is a beautiful piece...And,no, there is no hidden message in there from me to you, other than you were going 'nighty night'.

Here, this is another beautifully done tune, cleaner to, by someone else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCsmvNzneg

Enjoy!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 03:12 PM

This is CarolC on JtS' computer.


So, if you are likening the illegal immigration problem to the invasion of the Europeans

I feel quite confident that you know that this is not what I am doing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 03:50 PM

It depends on whether you're talking about the Europeans who arrived before the Asians crossed over the ice bridge, or the ones who arrived after Columbus.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 04:10 PM

Okay Mormons, people who can show a Clovis heritage, and direct descendants of Leif Ericson can stay.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 04:21 PM

Are you addressing the Mormons what live in Utah?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 04:54 PM

Look, everybody is welcome, but the resentment comes from those who break our laws, to get in, then want to sponge off the system. Did it ever occur to anyone that they could make things better where they are, and working toward that? With 14 million supposed workers, you'd think that would be one helluva work force to improve the conditions in ANY country, especially your originating country, that one claims they love.

And its silly for some of us to seize this issue, as a means of promoting an ideology, for us all to swallow. If someone wants in, come in legally, and pay taxes LIKE THE REST OF US!..EQUALITY FOR ALL, remember????????????

Let's stop the hypocritical double standard, as if anyone here is 'persecuting' lawbreakers...jeez!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 07:27 PM

If the Americans who break the law to employ illegal aliens were held accountable, there would not be a reason for people to illegally come here.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 07:59 PM

You're right, Alice, those folks are the ones who ought to be prosecuted.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 08:13 PM

900

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 12:52 AM

Then, of course, you would be persecuting the elderly widow who hires an itinerant Mexican worker to mow her lawn and do some yard work around her house because the teenager from down the street who used to do it has grown up and is off to college—and she can't get anyone else to do it for her.

Frankly, I don't begrudge either her or the worker, legal or illegal. Not every itinerant worker gets sick and "sponges off the system." After all, they are trying to earn enough to pay their own way and, hopefully, send some money to their families at home. And as far as income tax is concerned, they probably don't make enough to be in a category where they need to pay any.

And were it not for "illegals" like this, who's going to mow the lady's lawn?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 12:57 AM

By the way, I know of such a case for real. And I'll be damned if I'm going to rat on her because her only alternative is to hire some landscaping firm that charges more than she can possibly afford.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 12:58 AM

Don:"And were it not for "illegals" like this, who's going to mow the lady's lawn?"

Get real..What have you been smoking????

P.S. How'd you like the other link?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:10 AM

"Get real..What have you been smoking????"

That hardly refutes my point. You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that.

I AM real. And I don't smoke. Anything.

I'm off to bed. Just made a quick check-in after our Thanksgiving Day guests left. Very enjoyable day.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:24 AM

Saying the bit about , "Who's going to mow the old lady's lawn?", is a bit as stereotypical, as if one who says, "Hey, who's going to fill the membership of M13, and bring in plenty of meth, to those strung out on it?"
You think all the gardeners are illegals??? Take a trip down south and take a look for yourself!...jeez! Ask the construction workers who's doing what. Hospitality businesses, restaurants, and sweat shops. Alice is absolutely correct...but along with that should be implemented that those who are entitled to entitlements, are people who pay into it...not just live off it, and or just buy drugs with the money, or know they don't have to work, because they're getting it...(speaking of stereotypical), as you have introduced. And at that, stick to heath care or start a new thread!

And you never said if you liked the other piece of music(?).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 02:00 AM

Are you absolutely sure you're real, Don? Stop now. Take a deep breath and consider.

Your entire apparent existence here as you presently see it may be a delusionary hallucination that is being experienced by a drunken monkey-being on Cygnus 4 in the Andromeda System. He imagines that he is a human being named Don Firth and further imagines that he is arguing with a "Guest" named GfS on some Earth-based internet forum...and it's all just a dream!

Yes, it could be possible. And how do you know it's not? Hmmm? Gotcha there, Durelko! Now wake up, get some help with that Cardassian Ale addiction problem, and attend to your real responsibilities which are at home with Dabnea and your 18 little monkey-being children.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 07:31 AM

"—and she can't get anyone else to do it (mow her lawn) for her."

                   Actually, she can't get anyone else to do it for what she is willing to pay. The guy who would have done it is drawing unemployment compensation, but if he tried to do it for what the illegal is doing it for, he would lose his unemployment and his family would be out in the street.

                   Meanwhile, the illegal is doing it for cash under the table, so nothing is being paid into the ailing social security system, unemployment system, workers comp. programs, Medicaid and etc. So the fact that he doesn't make enough to pay income taxes is irrelevant.

                   Ergo, the taxpayers are subsidising the mowing of the lady's lawn, and the illegal alien is sponging off the taxpayers himself without even realizing it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 09:35 AM

""And at that, stick to heath care or start a new thread!

And you never said if you liked the other piece of music(?).""

Make up what we laughingly call your mind GfS.

Do you want him to stick to the thread topic, or comment on the music?

SHEESH!...Some people.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 11:42 AM

DonT, Just a simple yes or no, would work. Besides, this is a music blog..isn't it??
After all the inane arguing, posting some music might do the soul good!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 12:25 PM

Alice may be shocked to learn that we agree on something. I think she is absolutely correct when she suggests that employers of illegals are the most responsible for the illegals coming to the US in the first place. If they paid a decent wage for the job done, legal citizens would take the jobs done by illegals.

If one considers the problem of the cost of providing health services to illegals as part of the discussion on the health care bill presently being considered in the congress, it's not that far off the subject.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 12:45 PM

Quoting from today's Rasmussen Reports, "Forty-nine percent (49%)of voters nationwide now rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. That marks a steady increase from 44% at the beginning of October, 35% in May and 29% a year-and-a-half ago."

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that "just 27% now say the U.S. health care system is poor."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:55 PM

Agreeing With Alice, Doug, Little Hawk(yo-ho), and Rig. It's time we get off this bit of the 'pie in the sky' pipe dream that of you never grew out of, from the sixties. If you want to help your fellow man, dig into your own pockets, and knock off passing legislation that FORCES more government CONTROL over our lives!!...and to quote the lyrics from an old blues tune..

My father ain't your father
Your mother ain't my mother
Get your hands out of my pockets
And quit calling me brother!

That being said, I, still to this day, and am in the planning stages, of playing for yet another benefit concert to raise funds for those in financial need, in our community...and basically all that is needed, is for the people to ask for the help..no strings attached!...and we even pay for certain medical expenses, too!!!

And while were at it, take another good look at this one, which most of us have either heard, and performed...the double edge sword cuts BOTH WAYS!


Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And DON'T CRITICIZE
WHAT YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
YOU OLD ROAD.
IS RAPIDLY AGIN'
PLEASE GET OUT OF THE NEW ONE
iF YOU CAN'T LEND YOUR HAND
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music

Bob Dylan wrote this anthem in 1964 as a challenge to the political and social status quo. I am not sure that it didn't also have to do with the wave of music that was forming and how it left youth feeling empowered.

Fast forward to 2009!!!!!!
Warmest Regards, especially to all those that get it!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 02:16 PM

This whole thread has gone beyond stupid.

If no one is going to talk about reforming the U. S. health care system, I see no point in hanging around.

Don Firth

P. S. I'll make my points in the real world ~ my local and national legislative representatives, where I can make my wishes known to people who can do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 02:26 PM

DougR - Rasmussen Reports, "Forty-nine percent (49%)of voters nationwide now rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. That marks a steady increase from 44% at the beginning of October, 35% in May and 29% a year-and-a-half ago.

Well, Doug, that's sad! It indicates two things.

1. 49% of the American public is simply so blissfully ignorant of better health systems in many countries outside of the USA that they don't know what they're missing and probably never will. ;-) and....

2. They believe what their media and their insurance companies are telling them, which is mostly lies, scaremongering, and half-truths intended to deceive them.

I DO live somewhere where there is a far better health system than the USA has, so I am not taken in by your media, and your health insurance companies' propaganda and scaremongering.

Be that as it may, I do not think for a moment that Mr Obama's so-called health care plan is going to help much, because he caved in to your health insurance industry and is helping them, not the general public.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:30 PM

Don Firth:"If no one is going to talk about reforming the U. S. health care system, I see no point in hanging around."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D09DCZryG2U

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:02 PM

How is it discussing things with you, GfS? Well. . . .

Sorta like this.

But then, I try to take a somewhat larger view of things.

Don Firth

Now, back to our regular broadcast.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:18 PM

BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! SPLENDID!!!! AUTHOR!!! AUTHOR!!!!

(my reaction to all three of those videos....) Thanks, guys. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:21 PM

L.H.: Now tell my friend, when did you last experience a serious illness and you were treated by some provider in the U.S. health care industry? Do you think you REALLY are in a position (and this goes also for McGrath and other outside the U.S. critics of our system)to judge our system?

I wouldn't for a moment criticize yours in Canada or in the British Isles because I have never experienced it and all I know about it I've read here on the Mudcat, or someone knowledgeable about your system being interviewed (probably on Fox News)or read about it in a newspaper. Based on those I have heard interviewed, your systems aren't nearly as great as most of you here on the Mudcat report. Long waits for procedures, some procedures not available at all unless in a emergency (and by that time it is often too late), health care decisions made not by patient and personal doctor, but rather by a committee of "experts."

Whatever comes of the legislation the Democrats are trying so hard to pass, our system will not be like yours. Health care services will not be provided "free." Well, neither is yours of course, you just don't pay for service at the point of service.

So before one begins to cast aspersions on those polled, who do not provide the answers YOU think appropriate, give some thought to the basis for your criticism. Also the validity.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:44 PM

I know a simple fact, Doug, which is that in Canada my hospital treatment is done at no charge, because it's covered by national health insurance. That's the case for all Canadians, not just some of us.

I know that I pay less than $1,000 a year in income taxes to get that coverage. Match that.

I know that in Canada the patient and his or her physician decide on what treatment is to be done, because I have had any number of personal friends here who have confirmed that for me with their own stories of treatments they've undergone. This scaremongering about "a committee of "experts" overriding the wishes of a patient or the patient's personal physician is some snippet of something that Fox has dug up somewhere which they have blown way out of proportion. Many medical conditions in people are investigated by several practitioners (thus a committee) who are specialists in the field, before a decision is made as to what best to do...but the decision must be agreed to by the patient and the patient's personal doctor before it goes ahead. This happens not just in Canada, but also in the USA and in every other country in the world. There's nothing the least bit unusual about it, but your health insurance propagandists want to turn it into some kind of Orwellian scare story to get people to resist health reforms, that's all.


I also know that the largest number of personal bankruptcies per capita in the USA are now due to people being unable to meet their very high medical expenses, because I read it in your own news media from the USA a few days ago.

This is not the case in Canada.

I also know that you pay more already in income tax toward health care than I do...but I get full coverage for it, and you don't.

Nothing is provided for free, Doug, but our health care is provided at far less cost per capita than yours is, and it's universal. What your system really is, it's a huge subsidy to the drug companies and the health insurance providers, and Obama's helping them out by getting them more customers.

What I don't get is why you're not supporting him, because he's strengthening the corporate health insurance system you presently seem to believe in. ;-)

Here's some reading I suggest: Read a book by Kevin Trudeau about alternative health methods as opposed to mainstream medicine. If you persist in reading it, you'll probably be in a state of shock by the time you're done. I don't really have much faith in mainstream medicine, Doug, but I'm still glad we have universal health coverage in place in Canada, because at least it is there for the many people who do believe in conventional medicine, and it won't bankrupt them when they get sick.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 06:09 PM

There ya go again, LH, confusing the man with facts.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM

GregF:"There ya go again, LH, confusing the man with facts."

Yeah, there's a lot of that going around. There's a vaccine for it though....the 'news' media!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 12:47 AM

Yeah. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 01:24 AM

It's all in the way the question is asked. When asked if the health care system in the US is good, most people will say yes, because most people have insurance. However, when asked if they want Congress to pass a health care reform bill that includes a public option, most people will say yes to that, because most people are aware that a public option will decrease health care costs, and because they are aware that there are almost fifty million people in the US who don't have access to health care, and they don't think that is a sustainable situation. They are also aware that while they may have insurance now, if they lose their job or get sick, they will lose their insurance. So while they may think they are getting good health care now, everyone with private insurance is at risk for losing it, and being denied coverage in the future. Thus it is in everyone's best interest to have comprehensive health care reform that includes a public option, and the majority of people know it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:02 AM

That's all fine and dandy...but THIS 'health care' bill is not about health...its about control of more of the economy and you. If they were REALLY concerned about your health..I mean REALLY CONCERNED, they would educate you about foods. Remember the FDA, is FOOD and drug administration. First they screw you up with the foods, then hustle you drugs, for the ills you get from eating that shit! What you need to do, is get your body 'alkaline'. Viruses, NOR CANCER, can live or grow or propagate in an alkaline body. (Betcha' didn't know that.) Also being 'alkaline' causes your cholesterol count to normalize out, and you don't build plaque in your veins and arteries(amazing stuff, huh?). I know people, and more of them each week, who are CANCELING their 'health' insurances, except for emergency care, in case of accidents, by doing what it takes to turn their bodies from acidic to alkaline! YEAH!! For the baloney their shoveling at us about 'swine flu', 'health' care bills, vaccines, they could have supplied everyone with the means to get alkaline. Yes, dear ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, frogs and newts,...its not JUST the drug companies, insurances companies, and medical providers LOBBYING your 'representatives' to get this stupid thing passed....its the FOOD conglomerates, as well!!

I can tell you a lot more, but I'll wait, till some ears perk up, and some get off the 'political toilet' mentality. Listening to most of these clowns(politicians) is like the blind leading the blind. They don't know shit, other than how to bilk you out of your hard earned money, and to keep themselves in power, to do it more...and we just love it that way!!!!!...and argue about the most righteous way to commit national suicide!

But what do I know???...except the way out...and the first step is to stop cramming their shit into your ears...and into your minds!!

I mean, I don't eat shit, roll it around in my hands, stuff it into my nose, and certainly not cram it in my ears!! So why pay attention to most these assholes?? They are lying to us all, and we end up fighting amongst ourselves OVER THEIR LIES!!!!!! You've got to be kidding me!

Well before I go off, I'll just drop the 'alkaline' thing off to you, to chew on....just for starters. There are several ways to do it.

Anyway, stay well, be prosperous, and don't listen to bogus crusaders, who want your votes or money!
Warmest to You,
GfS

Winks at L.H.(yo-ho)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:20 AM

Osteoporosis and the dairy industry--what's the FDA NOT telling people?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:48 AM

So will correcting my body's PH levels eliminate my early stage cataracts?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 08:39 AM

You could ask your Congressman, he/she ought to be an expert on health care by now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 11:08 AM

No, my Congressman is an idiot and knows nothing about health care whatever. I suspect that the answer to my last question is "no". The point is that even if incorrect PH levels could do everything that GfS says it can, it can't correct all health problems, so people will still need to have access to adequate health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 12:29 PM

Carol, I'm going to check for you..will be back with an answer. Until then, I've heard it said that the enzymes in your saliva, put on your cataract, can begin to dissolve them. So, there's sit in you eye!...I'll check further. (Got great resources!..and they love to help!)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 01:22 PM

You can't put saliva on a cataract. The cataract is inside the eye. Based on your trust of the people who would say something like that, I think I would be disinclined to trust any sources you have on the subject of health care.

And my point still stands. Even if> (and it's a big "if") that whole thing about the PH balances wasn't total bullshit, there are still too many problems that it couldn't correct to make access to health care not a necessity for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 01:26 PM

Good stuff, GfS. You have seen past the tip of the iceberg (and that's all that the media and politicians ever tell us about).

Cancer cannot sustain itself in an alkaline or a well-oxygenated system. The appearance of cancer is a sign of a body that's already been stressed out to the point where the immune system is beginning to not be able to cope, and a body that is acidic from stress and bad diet, and is probably starved for oxygen as well, due to a number of factors (such as habitually shallow breathing that does not utilized the whole diaphram). Another cause of cancer is electromagnetic fields from various devices such as TVs, wireless devices, cellphones, microwaves, etc. We are awash nowadays in these electromagnetic fields because of all the technology we're using, and it does affect the body adversely over time. But the number one problem is: stress combined with bad diet.

Why are we only told about the tip of the iceberg? Well, because a lot of money is being made by food and drug marketing companies, and the medical fraternity in general, and they would very much like to maintain their present cash flow.

Some other common things that cause serious illness: antiperspirants, sunblock, sunglasses, anything that blocks up your body's natural cleansing systems (such as your sweat glands or your sinuses) or deprives you of natural sunlight.

The medical system generally gives you drugs to suppress a symptom. The symptom isn't the problem, it's a signpost that points toward a problem. The answer is not to treat the symptom, it's to address the underlying problem that is causing the symptom.

People, however, have been taught to be lazy and just find a quick fix to suppress their outer symptoms, while continuing to eat a bad diet and live a stressful and unhealthy lifestyle. They are encouraged to "have their cake and eat it too", then run to the doctor when a painful symptom appears, and the doctor attacks the symptom with drugs, surgery, radiation, and other such unhelpful assaults upon an already weakened body.

That's insane. It is not the way one really cures illness and restores good health.

There are some things doctors do very well. If I had a broken arm, I'd go straight to a doctor, yessir, because they know exactly how to help with that. It all depends what it is they're dealing with. But I will not go down their standard route of poison, cut, and burn to resolve my health problems.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:48 PM

In February of 2000, I took a bad fall in the bathroom and broke my left leg. Femur. It required an operation (I now have a titanium rod in my left thigh). The operation cost $14,000. I was in the hospital for three weeks. That, I understand, cost an additional $24,000. Fortunately, I had health insurance (my wife works at the Seattle Public Library and they have pretty good benefits).

I had polio when I was two years old, and it left me with a scoliosis (spinal curvature) which wasn't much of a problem until a few years ago. Last June, my lower back hurt so bad that I had to go to the emergency room (ruptured disk, perhaps?). CT and MRI scans, all kinds of tests. They still don't know and I'm due for further tests. In the meantime, they've got me on pain-killers (which I take only when absolutely necessary, because I don't want to get strung out). Once again, I'm covered by my wife's health insurance. $22,000+ so far.

Well, now! I am careful about what I eat and always have been. For my age, my heart, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc., are in very good shape, and apart from skeleto-muscular problems, my general health is excellent.

However, I certainly wish I had known that if I had been even more careful about my diet and paid more attention to my PH balance, none of these things that necessitated hospital visits would have happened.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 04:07 PM

Incredible what medical treatment costs, isn't it? I've got scoliosis too. I go to the chiropractor about once a month, and that helps keep things pretty much okay, and I've got some stretching exercises that help too...when I remember to do them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 04:19 PM

Quackery is promoted quite a bit on the internet.

Reality check about acid/alkaline theory of disease:
Click Here

"All foods that leave your stomach are acidic. Then they enter your intestines where secretions from your pancreas neutralize the stomach acids. So no matter what you eat, the food in the stomach is acidic and the food in the intestines is alkaline."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 05:01 PM

Right, Alice. GfS is right about the quality of the American diet, but I've heard all that acid/alkaline stuff before and knew it was pure quackery. His/her thesis seems to be that if we all stop eating at Burger King and stay away from the Twinkies, health insurance will no longer be necessary.

My wife, who does most of the grocery shopping, is up on nutrition and very health conscious (we're almost vegetarians and she always asks me "Have you had your fruit today?"), and I'm fully aware of such issues myself. But what medical expenses I've had over the past several decades have had nothing to do with diet.

####

I've had chiropractic adjustments all my life (my father was a chiropractor). My current chiropractor's office is only a few blocks from where I live. He takes a long lunch hour and goes jogging. On his way back to his office, about once every two weeks (oftener if I need it) he stops by here and works me over. Massages the back muscles, adjusts the vertebrae. The 3rd lumbar vertebra at the apex of the curvature is the culprit that keeps slipping out—feels like I have a railroad spike in my back. When he finishes, I can just lay on the bed and relax, and let the adjustment set.

And except for a small co-pay, my insurance pays for that also.

House calls. How rare is that!??

I would sure as hell hate to be without health insurance, and I feel very sorry for those who don't have any. When other countries, nowhere as rich as ours, have health care systems that are as good as (and in many cases better than) ours, paid for by taxes (just like police and fire protection) or by a regulated insurance system that costs a fraction of what is deducted from my wife's paycheck, the United States is actually way behind a lot of "third world" countries.

But we do have some of the best politicians that money can buy!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 05:06 PM

L.H.: A careful reading of my post should indicate that the subject of the post is quality, not cost.

Greg:I believe I was the first on the Mudcat to post that wee statement. Not absolutely sure, but I am pretty sure. I tell you this because your opinion of my intellect is so low, I think you would be reluctant to repeat something that I posted. Always thinking good thing about you Greg. Wouldn't want you to be embarrassed.

Carol: speak as one who has had cataracts removed from both eyes, I can assure you that early growth cataracts are nothing to be alarmed about. You'll probably be eligible for Social Security and Medicaid before they are large enough to affect your vision.

On the health care bill in the Senate, I don't know where you are getting your information about the popularity of the public option but every poll I am aware of reports that the majority of the population does NOT favor the public option. Likely that and federally funded abortions are what is likely to sink the whole bill.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 05:33 PM

I think there's some very good quality health care in the USA, Doug, and in Canada also, and in a good many other places. But why should people get bankrupted by the costs of that high quality medical care? That's what concerns me. It seems to me that it would be sensible if you had a public insurance program that covered all citizens (regardless of their medical condition). I am not suggesting that there's something wrong with the overall quality of your health care system, I'm talking about your lack of universal and inexpensive access to it through a publicly-funded health insurance program, such as exists in a good many other western democracies. This would not be any assault on the quality of your health care. It wouldn't change that at all. It would simply make it affordable for everyone.

Don and Alice - I'll look up some stuff on the acidic/alkaline diet possibilities when I get a bit of time here, and I'll post links. I doubt you'll be impressed by any of the info I find...(smile)...because your minds appear to be all made up on that score. But what the heck? I'll post the links anyway when I get some time to.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 05:37 PM

Yes, just the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables in many urban areas is a problem. People are living on processed foods from convenience stores and pizza and fried foods because real groceries are not available to them. If we could just help people have a healthy diet, that would improve our health care problems immensely.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 05:50 PM

Definitely, Alice. One of the oddities about the situation...and I've noticed this...is that most people, it seems, would far rather eat the stuff they usually do (fried food, deep-fried food, food loaded with salt or sugar, overcooked food, pizza, hamburgers, peameal bacon, etc) than eat some fresh fruits or vegetables instead.

As well as access to better food, there must also be a better effort made to educate the public about what to eat in order to be healthier.

When people are accustomed to eating processed food that is full of either salt or sugar or some other heavy spice, then they find the taste of fresh fruits and vegetables "too bland". It doesn't meet their accumstomed expectations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 06:05 PM

< Snarl On >

"I doubt you'll be impressed by any of the info I find...(smile)...because your minds appear to be all made up on that score. But what the heck?"

Just a personal aside here, Little Hawk, but when you make comments like that, do you realize just how insulting that is? It's very off-putting and tends to make one feel like skipping your posts entirely.

This would be a pity, because from time to time you do have some good things to say.

< Snarl Off >

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 11:58 PM

Well, I guess don't overreact to it, Don. I do find that when people believe anything very strongly...that is to say, when it becomes a core belief...that they are generally pretty much impervious to an opposing viewpoint, although if they are polite, then they will listen to it in a polite fashion.

This is just as true of me as it probably is of you or Alice.

For instance, nobody can convince me that all the reported UFO incidents are either hoaxes or errors in observation or our own secret military craft, etc...and that there are simply no aliens visiting us...because I have become absolutely certain by now that we do have some aliens visiting us from time to time.

This makes me totally unreceptive to people who deny categorically that there are (or could be) any aliens visiting us. But I will listen to them while they deny it. Then I'll shrug and go on my way, not changed one bit in my own opinion, because I'm sure of my opinion. And so are they! ;-)

I think we're all like that about some things, aren't we? I don't really expect to change anyone else's opinion if they're quite sure of it. But I will listen to it and let them have their say, and I expect you will too.

I'm quite sure about the alkaline/acidic dietary thing simply because some health practitioners I know and trust, do to my own direct experience with them, are themselves sure about it. I do not believe that those people are quacks. I know them personally, and I just don't believe it. There are definitely some quacks in the alternative health field...yes...and there are some quacks in conventional medicine too. And some of them don't KNOW they are quacks. One must judge them by one's own direct experience (or that of friends), because that is what separates the sheep from the goats.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:23 AM

My early stage cataracts are already affecting my vision.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:24 AM

...and all of the opinion polls that I've seen indicate that the majority of the public supports a robust public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 02:38 AM

Just came down from watching the tube, two interesting things:
Cato Institute reporting that the Dems are using 'quackery' to the public in their cost estimate of the health care bill. They(Cato) put the cost of it at six trillion dollars!! Look it up yourselves!
next, PBS is running a program titled, 'Eating'. Watch it! Repeatedly, they report that 'following the governments recommended dietary guidelines, is what made people, (and they name several high profile people, along with some stats) sick with cancers and heart diseases" They go onto enumerate which ones, and why. I hadn't seen this before I posted, my earlier post, to which L.H., added his.

And of course the stomach is acidic. Its suppose to be, to digest the food, but what is meant by being alkaline, is found when you have a blood test. What I posted before is absolutely true, and L.H. is also correct. Cancer does not survive or grow in an alkaline environment.

I have a brother, whose doctor just took him off of blood pressure meds, and cholesterol prescription, when he found that his blood test showed he had dramatically shown, after certain things my brother did to change his system from acidic to alkaline, within a month(!), had lowered both his cholesterol count and his blood pressure to well below the dangerous levels! He is now monitoring to see if what he is doing, will keep him off the meds. This I also got AFTER I posted my thread!

The thought that I or L.H. would deceive you on this knowingly, or otherwise, is absolutely ludicrous!..and again, who is accusing us, the usual gang of contentious boneheads!

Alice, How's your 'swine flu' coming?...feeling better????

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 02:52 AM

The Cato Institute is a think tank with a corporatist agenda. I don't trust anything they have to say about anything.

And as I said before, regardless of whether or not controlling the body's PH can do what is being claimed, that still doesn't eliminate the need for everyone to have health coverage. There are many health problems that would not be corrected through that method, even if it is valid.

Personally, though, on the subject of alternative methods, I think those should be covered by insurance also. At the very least, chiropractic and acupuncture should be.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guset from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 03:27 AM

Carol, you are right in saying,"...that still doesn't eliminate the need for everyone to have health coverage."

But not at the cost of 6 trillion!..plus this bill is NOT about health care, as propagandized. If the government is going to come up with a bill for that(or anything), how about an honest one. This bill is NOT the one!!(As I've said over and over).

P.S. Sorry, I haven't gotten back to you on the cataract thing, yet, still awaiting word..but the question has been submitted, as per promised.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 03:58 AM

I don't accept any figures coming from the Cato Institute, including the above referenced 6 trillion. They are just using propaganda of their own to scare people into abandoning any kind of health care reform at all. The Cato people have been pushing for privatization of Social Security for a long time. Had Social Security been privatized as they want, the results would have been a major tragedy for the elderly in this country. The Cato Institute cannot be trusted in any way. They have only one interest - to make the playing field even more biased in favor of the large corporations at the expense of the average people in this country and around the world. I do not accept the claim that the bills being considered by the Congress would cost 6 trillion dollars.

And while I don't think that the bills with the strongest chances of passing are anywhere near as good as what we need (single payer, not for profit), they are not anywhere near as bad as the propaganda being promoted by the Cato Institute and the rest of the corporatocracy would have us believe.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 04:22 AM

Ok, screw the Cato Institute....I'd rather support a better bill that this bit of hustle that's being pushed off on us...wouldn't you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 10:37 AM

""Do you think you REALLY are in a position (and this goes also for McGrath and other outside the U.S. critics of our system)to judge our system?""

The point is Dougie boy, that 47 million citizens of your supposed example of democracy at its best are not in a position to judge either, since they don't share the benefits of your privileged position.

That must be about twenty percent of your total population, which sort of corresponds to GfS's twenty nine percent who think it's crap.

So the "haves" are doing fine, and they are happy with the system which keeps the "have not's" in their place, well away from the "Haves'" dough.

I am afraid, that when I see the drivel spouted about proper, inclusive, national healthcare, it leads me to the conclusion that Gandhi was right....When asked what he thought of the US' civilisation, he replied "I think it would be a good idea".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 11:03 AM

Which bill is "this bill"? No bill has been agreed upon yet.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 11:21 AM

Carol, you are so right that many alternative health procedures should also be covered by national health insurance, because they are procedures which have long since proven themselve, which are accepted in many countries, and it's scandalous that they are not covered (in Canada, for example). Among those are, as you said, chiropractic and acupuncture. There are many naturopathic treatments that should also be covered. The reason they aren't covered is because conventional medicine is jealously guarding its turf...and that is all about money. Those with the biggest financial backing call the shots, and that determines what gets legislated.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:12 PM

"That must be about twenty percent of your total population, which sort of corresponds to GfS's twenty nine percent who think it's crap."

Where did you get that???

If the present administration has its way, we'll all be 'have nots' so we HAVE to be dependent on THEM!

This was a 'set up' by the way, of the previous administrations...so don't confuse me with one of 'them' either.

I DID mention that quite a few times during the elections..and I was, and am right. Just take a look!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:23 PM

Don T: "Privileged position?" 'splain please.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:24 PM

I think you're right, Sanity, but you probably need to take one more step. Who benefits from all of this? Certainly they aren't doing all of this for their health.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 03:03 PM

I have heard about this acid/alkaline balance thing for years. Undoubtedly there is something to it. But—health faddists invariably leap on small factors, blow them all out of proportion with the real world, and try to make whatever their particular bug is the be-all and end-all of health.

My sister used to work in a health food store. She got interested in some of the claims that were being made for this or that diet, all of which are supposed to have the power to heal the sick, raise the dead, and generally enable one to walk on water. The acid/alkaline balance thing was a fad that was popular forty years ago. But it proved to be no panacea. It faded out, but still emerges from time to time. The internet is full of it (many sites pushing it are also trying to sell you a "water ionizer" for your kitchen faucet). And the internet is also full of all the other dietary fads that ever existed.

Drinking gallons of apple cider vinegar every day was supposed to adjust the PH balance and make one immune to everything from athlete's foot to cancer to hiccups to meteor strikes. But somehow wide consumption of the stuff didn't affect the national health figures. I imagine those who bottled and sold apple cider vinegar experienced a bit of a bonanza, though.

I'm healthy as a horse, save for the aforementioned scoliosis, which is a skeleto-muscular thing and is not affected one way or the other by diet. And I simply eat a well-balanced diet, letting such things as PH balance take care of themselves.

Sure, if I survived on Big Macs and fries every day, and washed them down with Coca-Cola, I would expect to have repercussions. But I'm smarter than that.

But—food fads and other one-solution gimmicks can be just as unhealthy as trying to survive solely on pizza and beer.

Don Firth

P. S. I have seen obesity figures for the United States as high as 40%, and it's true that many Americans eat a totally crap diet, but—why some people seem to regard the nation's poor eating habits inimical to a good government supported public health service, I just don't see. Trying to promote eating a healthier diet (and healthier living in general) should be an integral part of a national health care system.

But this current health care bill, with the insurance companies' noses in the middle of it, is turning out to be the proverbial horse designed by a committee, i.e., a six-legged camel. Too bloody cumbersome to function, which is exactly they way they want it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 03:08 PM

I think you're right, Don, that none of these things is a panacea and that people can get carried away with their particular pet issue or cure and take it too far. In any case, each individual case is unique, so the same approach won't work for everyone...and that's something that health practitioners themselves must keep in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 10:22 PM

As it stands, the public option is to get start up funds, but be entirely self sustaining from premiums only, for all time. They have to negotiate rates, the same as any other insurer, with no powers of coercion (e.g. take Medicare reimbursement rates.) I haven't a clue how this is supposed to work. It is generally accepted that higher cost individuals are supposed to end up there. They say the population will be tiny (3m?). Who is going to negotiate with it unless they have some other buying power we don't see? It should either shrivel or grow if it's free market as they say. The Feds are going to watch them shrivel and die with a hands-off policy?

Actuarial musings

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 11:45 PM

Hmmm, Interesting couple of posts from the resident horse. Here, try this:

Fact: Dr.Otto Warburg won a Nobel Prize, in 1931 for discovering the cause of cancer originated and grew in oxygen deprived acidic tissue. Nobody since then has been able to disprove or repudiate that fact!(Little Hawk was again correct).

Fact: Dr. Hiromi Shinya of Japan, IS Japan's top surgeon, and considered within the top 10 in the world. He invented the colostomy procedure, and when you see the little camera, that you may have seen, on videos, or T.V., with the little tool on it to remove polyps, that was his invention. He has performed over 300,000 of those procedures, which included followed up, with giving the patient water, from his machine, that he also helped designed, from the large machines they have in the hospitals(in Japan)for home use, and is, in fact, the only licensed medical device, with three sanctions from the 'Biological Medical Institute', comprised of 6,500 doctors worldwide. With this water, and diet, to alkaline the body, NOT one person had a relapse or re-occurrence with that water!!

Fact: Dr. Hiromi Shinya is currently, clinical professor of surgery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in New York City, and Chief of Surgical Endoscopy Unit at Beth Israel Medical Center.
He has also written a book called the 'Enzyme Factor' (over 2 million sold)which is considered brilliant, and should be read by anyone who is REALLY INTERESTED about their health, beyond the politically correct nonsense, which has us ranked 37, in life longevity. It lays out exactly what you should know, and finally is being used by physicians and health givers, to educate people about foods, illnesses, and wellness,...not to mention living longer.

Fact: Japan ranks number one in life longevity. America ranks 37th!

Fact:The machine he is associated with is called 'Enagic', and info can be found at:

miraclewaterfoundation.com

I do not own one, but two people I know do, and swear by them. I do not sell them, nor have I any financial interest, commercial interest nor profit in anyway, from them. (I've gone a different route to get 'alkaline'). However these machines do work, within the first week, and one of my brothers, whose figures I will post, from his blood test, will blow you away!

So you might have 'opinions' about it one way or another, but they, on the most part, are just hot air from windbags..with no actual facts regarding what is being said.(That usually doesn't matter to a couple of the resident blowhards on here...well it hasn't in the past, anyway). I suggest to anyone who is really seriously heath conscious in this, to check out the website...not for arguing, but to educate themselves, and take a look-see.

This is a health issue, I'm not looking to debate! I already did my homework! I'm just trying to help!

I'm told, that those who buy the machines, are encouraged to GIVE the water away FREE, to any and everyone..for health's sake. Let THEM tell you if it changes their health!!
Warmest Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 12:30 AM

I think you'll find that there is a difference between a colostomy and a colonoscopy. And I would suggest that you don't want to confuse the two.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 12:42 AM

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 12:43 AM

Don is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 12:55 AM

I was typing pretty quickly, and my eyes went to the wrong line, in my notes. Don corrected the terms "...there is a difference between a colostomy and a colonoscopy...."(my spell check says that your spelling is wrong, and won't give me any other choice...I think you did spell it right, though).

P.S. For once we didn't butt heads. Its okay, Don, to admit error. Try it sometime, its OK! Rather be right, than opinionated.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 12:31 PM

Very interesting stuff, GfS. Which method did you employ to move toward an alkaline system?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 01:20 PM

"Rather be right, than opinionated."

That's on my family crest, GfS. Also, "Check. Then check it again."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 01:58 PM

GfS, there are a number of pretty good indications that you are dealing with a snake oil salesman.

One is that what the person is advocating is a simple sounding "one size fits all" solution to a number of disparate health problems.

Another is when the solution is presented, not in medical journals with the idea of testing and peer review, but in the popular media:    books written for the general public, or on late-night television "infomercials."

Yet another is when the main advocate of the new and amazing panacea wants to sell you a gadget or a tonic or a bottle of pills that will bring this miraculous healing about.

Don Firth

P. S. Even if it sounds vaguely plausible, Check. Then check it again.

P. P. S   And even if there were such a magic cure for most of the world's ills, it would still not replace the need for health care reform in this country.

P. P. P. S.   And that's not being opinionated. That's just good sense!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:40 PM

Today's Rasmussen poll:
41% SUPPORT HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION, 53% OPPOSE.

"The U.S. Senate is now formally beginning debate on a plan to reform health care in America, but most voters remain opposed to the plan working it's way through the Congress.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:07 PM

I don't really know how to interpret your figures, Doug, and here's why.

I too am opposed to the plan that is presently going through Congress...but I am in favor of a different plan, one that would put in place a one-payer universal health care plan such as we have in Canada.

So, when you say that such and such a percent of your public is opposed to the health care plan that is presently being presented in your Congress, what does that tell us about what your public actually wants in terms of a health care plan and what their concerns are?

Not much!

People could oppose that plan for a huge variety of divergent reasons, and they could be people who would utterly disagree with one another on health care.

So as far as I can see, all you're doing is chuckling over the fact that Obama, a Democratic president, is losing support for his position, and for no other reason than the fact that you like to see a Democratic president lose support for his position.

As far as I can see, Obama's plan is strengthening the position of the very kind of privatized for-profit health care system you already support.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:55 PM

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Since when do you believe in polls, Douggie-boy? When they were running against your boy Dumbya you said polls were nonsense & not to be believed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:29 PM

They are nonsense for the most part. What people say in response to a poll has usually been carefully pre-arranged by the pollsters by wording the questions in the poll so as to elicit the desired response from the majority of those responding.

"Sucker" questions, in other words.

But it makes for a good 20-second news bite.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:31 PM

Don, THAT WAS A STUPID POST! I don't even want to get into refuting it, bit by bit. It was just too stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:57 PM

Rassmussen has consistently shown lower approval numbers for health care reform than most of the other polls, so this last one is no surprise to me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 06:13 PM

It all depends on how they word and present the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 06:32 PM

"Don, THAT WAS A STUPID POST! I don't even want to get into refuting it, bit by bit. It was just too stupid!"

GfS, your response to my post is the response of someone who has been nailed fairly, but refuses to acknowledge the fact. Of course you're not going to try to refute it, because you can't!

I leave it for others to judge, since you are not capable.

####

On Doug's statistics, Little Hawk is right on the money. I know a lot of people who are very gung-ho for health care reform, but see that the current plan (elephant = mouse designed by a committee) is not going to help a thing, but unduly complicate the non-system we now have, and generally make things worse ~ while allowing the politicians to sit back and congratulate themselves for "reforming the health care system." And then go cash the checks they've collected from all the insurance company lobbyists.

For all the sturm und drang, real health care reform ain't gonna get done this time around, either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:02 PM

>>Many . . . see the current plan (elephant = mouse designed by a committee) is not going to help a thing, but unduly complicate the non-system we now have, and generally make things worse ~ while allowing the politicians to sit back and congratulate themselves for "reforming the health care system." And then go cash the checks they've collected from all the insurance company lobbyists.<<

That's what I thought about at the 22% "strongly support." Who could love it? But it is going to help one thing: expanded access. Not to be sniffed at.

Mouse designed by committee - yeah. Obama was persuaded that the time had come to do something big . . . not bold.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 09:54 PM

Look at these clowns. Big picture? Not on your life. No wonder the insurers and employers and unions can run circles around them:

-Employers would be required to provide an unpaid "reasonable break time for nursing mothers" in the first year after giving birth. Women would be provided a private place, other than a bathroom, to use a breast pump. The provision exempts companies with fewer than 50 workers if the requirement would impose "an undue hardship," a determination left to the employer to make.

-The Senate wants to help with a provision allocating $400 million from 2010 to 2015 to help teens make the transition to adulthood. The money goes to states primarily to set up sex education programs. But the money can also be used for "adult preparation" programs that promote "positive self esteem, relationship dynamics, friendships, dating, romantic involvement, marriage and family interaction."

In addition, the programs can teach financial literacy and other skills such as goal setting, decision-making and stress management. About $10 million of funding would go to "innovative youth pregnancy prevention strategies" in areas of the country with high teen birth rates.

The Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training funding was approved as an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine joined all the Democrats in passing it.

-Retiree who are under 65 but who still get health insurance from their former employer get a $10 to $15 billion a temporary "reinsurance" program under which the government
would pick up 80 percent of some high-cost insurance claims filed by retirees. (!!!)

-Raising the payment for bone density scans is a priority for two senators whom Reid hopes to win over in his bid to get 60 votes for his health care plan: Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat from Arkansas, and Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine.

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

I noticed that all the pro-government people didn't bother to comment on that exemplar of the government-industry interface. Once again:
eHealth
"Sapsford . . . made headlines last month after the Star revealed his nearly $500,000 a year salary was funnelled through Hamilton Health Sciences to skirt government pay guidelines for senior bureaucrats."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 10:31 PM

"-Raising the payment for bone density scans is a priority for two senators whom Reid hopes to win over in his bid to get 60 votes for his health care plan: Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat from Arkansas, and Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine."


                Are they that dumb?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 10:57 PM

It's hard to believe. But I think the conclusion is unavoidable.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 11:04 PM

She is very proud of it. Along with this: The modified Chairman's Mark [by Lincoln] would create a comprehensive approach to ensuring adequate public-private infrastructure and resolving to prevent, detect, treat, understand, intervene in, and where appropriate, aid in the prosecution of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation by incorporation of Lincoln's Elder Justice Act (S. 795).

http://lincoln.senate.gov/newsroom/2009-09-22-5.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 11:08 PM

No Don. It is refutable, but really it is very stupid. How is one suppose to address gibberish?? Never mind, don't try to even explain it...we'll end up somewhere on another planet...probably Uranus!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 01:22 AM

Just because you either can't understand common sense or have a vested interest in apple cider vinegar and selling "water ionizers," GfS, doesn't mean what I posted is gibberish. As I said, I'll leave it to others to make their own judgement of what I wrote.

Go ahead. Let's see you try to refute it. Dazzle us all with your brilliance!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 01:29 AM

By the way, for those who wonder which of my posts GfS is whining about, it's at 30 Nov 09 - 01:58 p.m.

It's about 10:30 p.m. local time. Good night and pleasant dreams.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:19 AM

""Don T: "Privileged position?" 'splain please.""


"You've got yours, so screw the losers". Almost every comment you make reinforces that image of your attitude.

Over the course of five years or so, seeing your opinions on many different subjects, I have an overall picture of a man who is where he wants to be, and will defend his position vigorously, but sees those who cannot climb the ladder as indolent losers.

A man, in fact, who is adamantly opposed to paying one red cent of his hard earned cash to helping the less fortunate.

What is most difficult to explain to such men is that socialism is not synonymous with communism, that social projects will, in the long term pay dividends both nationally and individually, and that by paying a few cents extra on a regular basis, he can save himself money in the long term.

The bottom line is this. ALL the money your government spends comes out of your pockets, because that's all the money governments HAVE. One way or the other YOU pay.

Wouldn't you rather pay less AND have everyone covered?

If you answer no to that, then you are saying you prefer to go on being ripped off by greedy insurance companies, while one in five of your countrymen have nothing but the minimum of emergency aid.

That seems like a privileged position to me, at least until you retire, lose your job, or develop a condition they won't cover.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM

My apologies to Guest from Sanity.

Sorry GfS, the figure I quoted was from DougR, not from you.

""The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that "just 27% now say the U.S. health care system is poor."""

DougR



And it was 27, not 29 percent.

The point I made, however, is still valid.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:40 AM

That seems like a privileged position to me, at least until you retire, lose your job, or develop a condition they won't cover.

He's already retired and he receives his medical care through a government administered and taxpayer funded program. He thinks only people over the age of 65 deserve to be socialists.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 01:27 PM

Don T: Carol C is correct in that I am retired. My insurance is provided by myself (co-pays), Medicare, and the Veteran's administration. It is not given to me, I earned it.

I receive no more than any other United States citizen who worked, paid into the Social Security system and served in the armed forces (U.S. Army).

If you classify that as privileged, then I have a lot of company:
Anyone who worked until retirement age.
Anyone who paid INTO the social security program until retirement.
Anyone who served in our country's armed forces.

And if you are of the opinion that should the current legislation in congress introduced by the Democrats becomes law it is:
Going to save people money.
Not going to increase the country's deficit.
Going to provide health insurance for EVERYBODY who doesn't have it.
Be operated efficiently.
You could use a good examination by a very good Psychiatrist.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:20 PM

""I receive no more than any other United States citizen who worked, paid into the Social Security system and served in the armed forces (U.S. Army).""

Are you trying to tell the world at large that 47 million Americans have never worked, paid into the Social Services, or served in the armed forces?

I only ask because you have just stated that you get no more than those who have.

Since the official figure for US unemployment is 10.2 percent, as of October 2009, and this is double the figure of 4.9 percent at December 2007, it would appear that there is a serious mismatch between the five percent of Americans unemployed and presumably relying on Social Security up to 2007, and the twenty or so percent who lack access to medical care.

It seems obvious then, that you do get more than quite a large number of those who work and pay into Social Services.

As for your other point, I do live in a civilised country, where my medical care costs me nothing at the point of treatment.
I did, until my retirement pay a National Insurance Contribution from my wages.
That contribution was about one tenth of the equivalent payment by those with company packages in the USA, and every single resident of this country, legal, or illegal, gets the same treatment, at need.

As a nation the UK spends a fraction of what the USA does, and we have universal care. And there are other countries who have systems which are arguably even better than ours.

Who was it that needs to pay a visit to a good Psychiatrist?.......But be careful which one you choose mate, it'll cost you a f**king fortune.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:55 PM

Don(roll my eyes again):"..Just because you either can't understand common sense or have a vested interest in apple cider vinegar and selling "water ionizers,..."

I wasn't referring to water ionizers.....Told you it was gibberish! How can I address your change of subject? You do this all the time!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:58 PM

You're in worse shape than I thought, GfS. You can't even remember what you've posted.

Read your own post at 29 Nov 09 - 11:45 p.m.

Dr. Hiromi Shinya, the surgeon you cited as "inventing the colostomy [sic] procedure," and whom you seem to put so much store by has written a popular book, The Enzyme Factor, but I find nothing about him in medical journals. He has also developed a "miracle water" device (a water inonizer). And all of this, according to you, renders health care reform in this country unnecessary. Just buy some litmus paper and check your PH from time to time, and you'll never be sick again.

THAT's what I'm referring to!

And you call me stupid! Read your own stuff, GoofuS!!

Don Firth

P. S. I take it that, by now, you've sorted out the difference between a colostomy and a colonoscopy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:00 PM

How meaningful are phone polls work these days when huge numbers of people, especially young people, don't use land-line phones any more?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 07:40 PM

I seriously doubt that Dr. Hiromi Shinya "invented" the colonoscopy, as GfS said.

By the way, for those who don't know the difference between a colostomy and a colonoscopy:   If a person's normal bowel function is impaired (by, say, cancer of the rectum), a surgeon may "reroute" the patient's colon to a surgically created orifice in the side of the abdomen. One must then wear a "colostomy bag" fastened over the orifice with adhesive, into which fecal matter is deposited. Not pleasant, but there are a lot of people who are living with colostomies.

A colonoscopy is a diagnostic procedure in which the entire length of the colon can be examined by inserting a very small camera attached to a fiber-optic cable through the anus. The colon can be examined for polyps, cancerous growths, or any other conditions.

Preparation is the most unpleasant part of the procedure for the patient. The entire colon must be cleared of fecal matter, necessitating some pretty extreme purging prior to the procedure. Humor columnist Dave Barry describes his experience in what is probably the world's longest – and funniest – poop-joke ~ HERE.

For the procedure itself, the patient is anesthetized.

The above is for your enlightenment and edification.

By the way, recently a friend of mine was highly amused by a message she got in a fortune cookie. It said, "You have an inner beauty." She laughed and said, "That's what they told me after my colonoscopy!"

Re "inventing" the colonoscopy procedure:   procedures of this kind are generally "invented" by a number of people. Someone has an idea, such as "It would be good if we could do some sort of minimally invasive (!?) examination of the colon that doesn't involve surgery at all." Many people put much thought to how this can be done and many ideas are advanced and rejected. Oftentimes, the solution comes with a technological advance of some sort such as—in the case of the colonoscopy—the development of a miniaturized television camera combined with fibre-optics.

My nephew is a trauma surgeon, and he has worked on a number of devices and procedures involving endoscopy and laparoscopy. That, he tells me, is how it's usually done, and rarely can any one person claim that he or she "invented" the procedure or device.

And this country STILL needs RATIONAL health care reform that includes a public option. Other countries have excellent systems that are much less expensive than ours. Why is the country that touts itself as "The Leader of the Free World" so bloody primitive in this area!??

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, GfS, I thought I would try to help you sort a few things out. This chart should help:   Learn to tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:35 PM

Don:(the town Jester)Dr. Hiromi Shinya, the surgeon you cited as "inventing the colostomy [sic] procedure," and whom you seem to put so much store by has written a popular book, The Enzyme Factor, but I find nothing about him in medical journals. He has also developed a "miracle water" device (a water inonizer). And all of this, according to you, renders health care reform in this country unnecessary. Just buy some litmus paper and check your PH from time to time, and you'll never be sick

First: you make a big deal out of my typo, which I since corrected, and copped to, as soon as it was brought to my attention.

Second: You inserted '(a water ionizer)'..which was NOT IN MY TEXT, and then go on to make a big stink of it...AND YOU INSERTED IT!!! THEN ARGUE THAT POINT?!?!?

Third. Checking your PH balance with litmus paper is not how to do it, and will not raise your alkalinity. It is don't with a blood test.

Fourth: You can't find Dr. Hiromi Shinya in a medical journal?? Here, try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiromi_Shinya

AND THAT'S JUST WITHIN YOU FIRST PARAGRAPH!!!!!

I'm not wasting anymore time with this, or you!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:38 PM

Correction: I wrote,"It is don't with a blood test."

Should read: "It is DONE with a blood test."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:36 PM

Speaking of colonoscopies, there are a lot of people in the US who need colonoscopies right now but can't get them because they don't have any health insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:31 AM

Dr. Hiromi Shinya developed an accessory to the colonoscope which allowed the surgical removal of any polyps that were discovered during a colonoscopy. He did not "invent" the colonoscope.

By the way, GfS, your confusion of "colostomy" and "colonoscopy" was a bit more than a mere typo. It indicated to me that you are trying to use words that you don't really understand (early on, my mother told me that wasn't a good idea). And it wasn't that long ago that when I made a geniune typo (slip if the fingers), you danced around in glee and tried to claim that it proved I was mentally incompetent.

The Kangan Water device, developed by Dr. Hiromi Shinya, alters the acid/alkaline balance of water through ionization. Therefore, it is a water ionizer. I believe that it also makes some use of electrolysis (the process by which water is separated into its component gases, hydrogen and oxygen), but the information on the internet about how the device works is sufficiently vague to preclude any kind of scientific analysis.

Some pretty far-fetched health claims are made for this device. Far-fetched enough to make any reasonable person highly skeptical of the claims made for it.

There may be something to this gadget. But—it has all the earmarks of the kind of potions and gadgets that my sister (whom, as I mentioned, worked for a time in a health food store) kept running into, and which were being hawked as cure-alls for everything from toenail fungus to heart disease.

Yes, there is a brief article about Dr. Hiromi Shinya in Wikipedia.   But here's a news flash, GfS:

Wikipedia is not a medical journal!

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't accept an article in Wikipedia as being as authoritative as peer-review articles in scientific or medical journals.

And the repetitive insults and abuse you keep throwing in my direction are a dead giveaway that you know you are on very shaky ground, and you are doing your damnedest to try to carry off the bluff.

Go take your meds.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, GfS, doctors generally don't require a blood test to check a person's PH balance. That's done simply by having the patient pee on a piece of litmus paper. The color of the wet paper indicates the acid/alkaline balance.

Have you had a physical lately? You seem to be a bit fuzzy about how doctors work. Maybe it's time.

P. P. S. I suppose this little exchange of pleasantries is related to the health care reform debate, but Carol's most recent post brings it right back to what this thread is all about. There are people ~ many people ~ in this country who are in need of medical attention. And can't get it!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:35 AM

Don, you just made another typo. It is "Kangen" water, not "Kangan" water.

Not that it matters much, but I thought I'd mention it so you'd know in future how to spell it. I don't think it indicates any mental instability on your part. ;-)

Interestingly enough, I went to Toronto today on business, got that taken care of, then dropped by my favorite hobby shop to see what new stuff might be in (model kits, that is).

To my great surprise what was the first thing I see as I park the car? Two doors down from my hobby shop, which I've been patronizing for years, is a large storefront with a sign about Kangen Water! Gad! Talk about synchronicity. Un-frikkin'-believable. I only first heard about the stuff yesterday....I spent some time reading about it on the Internet yesterday....and today I find a whole store devoted to it and some other health-related stuff right next to my favorite hobby shop.

Do I believe in fortunate synchronicites? Yeah....I've seen them happen before quite a few times. Anyway, I went in to that place and spent a couple of very interesting hours talking to a young Chinese man and a young Chinese woman all about those machines you allude to so suspiciously, and seeing demonstrations of the Ph levels of common varieties of commercially bottled water, ionized water from the machine, etc. Most interesting, to be sure.

I intend to investigate it further.

I also got a free 40-minute massage by a type of oriental massage table they have there. It uses heat and a set of jade rollers that work up and down the entire spine while you lie there and they massage every part along the five meridians (see acupuncture meridians) that run up the back. In short, there is a central meridian going up the spine, there are two more close to the spine running parallel on either side, and two more running parallel to those, but farther out from the spine. These same long meridians can be worked on by a masseuse or a chiropractor. The mechanized table massages all these meridians with heat and pressure while you lie there, according to a computerized program, and the whole thing takes 40 minutes.

They have about 15 of the tables in the store, and anyone can walk in off the street and get a free massage from the table. One guy in the neighborhood came in every day for nearly a year, because it was helping him so much.

Long story short....I got my 40 minute massage and felt absolutely great afterward.

Why do they offer free massages? So people can find out how good this massage table is, in which case they may or may not decide to buy one. If they don't buy one, the store has lost nothing, and the person has gained a great massage...or a whole series of them, because you can come back every day if you want to, for as long as you want to.

I will be doing a good deal more reading on the Kangen water device and how it works. The demonstrations with various types of water were quite interesting. You should have been there. ;-)

The only way anyone can possibly find out about this stuff is...try it. Or know someone else who has tried it and whose opinion and judgement you trust.

Other than that, it's all just a big blather of opinion (most of it based on some sort of prior prejudice that the opinionator has), and you know that everyone in this world has:

2 armpits
2 knees
2 eyes
1 asshole
and a whole bunch of opinions!

I take people's opinions with a grain of salt unless I know them very, very well indeed...but the one thing that really impresses me is my own direct experience, because then...I know. I have yet to reach any particular conclusion about the Kangen Water. I am in the process of investigating it. My conclusion about the oriental massage table is...it's darned good. I would go for that massage every single day if I lived closer to that store (but it's in Toronto, and I'm an hour and a half north of Toronto).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:44 AM

Little Hawk,
Once more you bring in reason! Thank you!
The reason I brought up the Kangen water machine was, as you said, those who have tried it, rave about it.
As said before, I don't sell them, nor have any interest, financially with them, but those who are involved claim that it has changed their lives, and health.
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:55 AM

I think the question that would need to be asked is how many of the people who report beneficial results from drinking kangen water do not themselves benefit financially from the sale of kangen water or kangen water machines.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM

That is an important point, Carol. I have been doing some reading on the Net about it. It seems that there are a fair number of manufacturers making similar water ionization machines, but the Kangen Water ones are much more expensive than most of the others (if I can go by what I'm reading) and this appears to be because Kangen is an MLM operation (multi-level marketing), so there ends up being a big markup on the sale price. It looks like the Kangen machines are about twice as expensive as most of the others, and they're probably not significantly better....but they get a lot more public promotion than the others do.

Other than than, virtually everyone who's tried them says that they have experienced many good health results from them. The main argument seems to be about their comparative price levels, not their effectiveness.

However, I'm just beginning to look into it. I have some people in Barrie who should be able to give me plenty of accurate information about these devices, so I'll see what they have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:47 PM

If it works, fine and dandy. Go for it. But I still see this discussion as being, at best, merely peripheral to the health care reform issue--and what appears to be a deliberate diversion.

And Little Hawk: "Don, you just made another typo. It is "Kangen" water, not "Kangan" water."

I don't know if one could legitimately call that a "typo" or not. I cut the word from a web site that was trying to sell the thing and pasted it into my post. If it is a misspelling, then they'd better get their act together!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:53 PM

Of course it's peripheral to the main discussion, Don. The only reason I'm talking about it is because I happen to find it quite interesting. I doubt that anyone here intended it as a diversion, but if it's Mudcat conspiracies you're looking for....well, there are always plenty of those to theorize about. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:04 PM

Well, no, Little Hawk. Rig tried to divert the thread from health care to his hobby horse, illegal immigration. GfS joined that parade for a bit, then started in on "making water."

But then, this whole thread jumped the shark long ago.

I may check back from time to time, but most of today I'll be making music. I'm tinkering with some recording equipment.

By the way, I never did get back to you on your YouTube video. Good stuff! The sound quality wasn't great (YouTube being what it is), but I could tell that your diction is nice and clear. Good voice, driving guitar. More! More!

Buy the way, congratulations: Your above post was 1000!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:20 PM

A friend sent me a email in which he referred to a recent article in The Guardian reporting that the death rate from cancer in Great Britain is 38% higher than in the U.S. and 16% higher in Canada.

Could this possibly true?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:07 PM

Well, the thread IS about about 'Health Care Reform'...Hey, how about this for reform.....YOU (we) are ultimately responsible for our own health. How about being at least a little bit cognizant, of the fact that if there are things we can do to improve our own health, and quit relying on the government(read: other people's money) to pick up the slack for our ignorance, bad habits, and recklessness, perhaps that is a 'reform' that starts with us.....before we go running to someone else!!!

Do I think there should be some sort of government run health care?...YES.... Should that be a reason to neglect our own health, or do something to improve our health, figuring someone else can pay for it?...NO!

Again, government 'entitlements(?) should only be a safety net,..not a way of life for physical, mental and emotional slobs!

Why wait to get needlessly sick, when you can do things to prevent it????
(Unless you're helplessly needy, all the time, Read: Pain in the ass!)
GfS

P.S. Think before you blather back!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:12 PM

People with private insurance are relying on other peoples' money to pay for their health care also. If you have private insurance, your health care is paid for by other people's premiums. Are you willing to go without any insurance at all yourself, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:10 PM

Yes..I do...and I take care of myself, too. When I need to go, I do. I pay for it myself.
And as I said, before you didn't read my full post..."Do I think there should be some sort of government run health care?...YES...."

That being said, who wants to wait till they get sick?? We can all do things to stay healthy..or healthier. Not only do you feel better, you're happier too!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:20 PM

So if you were in a car wreck, and you had injuries that would cost a million dollars to get you fixed up, and millions more to take care of you for the rest of your life because you got totally messed up in the accident, you would be able to pay for that yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:41 PM

1982 I was a pedestrian walking across the street, and was hit by a car going 37 mph. Because he hit me,(and it was a government car) his insurance paid for it.

I also have car insurance, in case I cause damage to someone.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:55 PM

So you took other people's money to pay for your medical expenses, then.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:58 PM

Here's another for instance... let's say you have a congenital defect (that you are not aware of) in your brain that causes you to have an aneurysm that costs a million dollars to treat and stabilize you, and millions more during the course of the rest of your life to keep you alive. Would you be able to pay for that yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:25 AM

You're both making good points. GfS is correct that the public should (on average) probably exert a good deal more effort in maintaining good health, rather than behaving like lazy, irresponsible fools and then waiting for the medics to rush in and save them from the results of their bad lifestyle.

Carol is also correct that a government-run health plan should be there to assist people who are struck by unexpected medical emergencies such as she alludes to.

You are both in favor of a government-run health care plan to deal with these things. I see no reason for arguing as if you were opposed to one another, when in fact you may be very much in agreement on a great many things.

I can say too that like GfS I have cost the government in Canada almost nothing in health insurance costs, because I have hardly had to consult hospitals or doctors for anything at all during my adult life. Most of the medical costs I've incurred have been dental (which isn't covered), chiropractic (which is not covered much), and naturopathic (which isn't covered). So my taxes have been going to heal other people, not me, because I've taken good care of myself and I've mainly gone for alternative forms of treatment that aren't covered. Do I resent paying for other people's health care when I pay my taxes? No, not in the least. I'm glad to do it. I think it's part of having a decent and responsible society. My total taxes toward health care are less than $1,000 a year, and that seems quite reasonable to me.

Don - That poor shark has been jumped so much lately on various Mudcate threads that he's probably getting quite paranoid by now.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:55 AM

Good advice in general, GfS. However, there is a small flaw in your reasoning.

So you DO take responsibility for your own health. You have never smoked, you drink in moderation (a little wine at meals from time to time because you have read from authoritative sources that it's good for you), you watch your diet carefully, you exercise every day, the whole ball of wax. You are all aglow with abundant good health.

Then, one day, you are crossing the street (in the crosswalk and with the light after having looked both ways) when some dork who's not watching his driving because he's text-messaging while steering with his knees runs the light. You're suddenly airborne, land on the guy's windshield, and the next thing you know, you wake up in the hospital in traction.

But this time, the dork is not insured! And, yes, he is driving illegally.

Or you and a group of friends go out to a fine restaurant. You eschew many of the goodies on the menu because you regard them as not particularly healthy (too fatty, too much salt, etc.) and while others are ordering steak, you order the new item on the menu:   buffalo steak. Much leaner that beefsteak, free-range, grass-fed, and not full of hormones and such. Very tasty, very healthy. Normally. But you and four other people who ate at that restaurant wind up in the emergency room with food poisoning because that particular shipment of buffalo steaks hadn't been properly refrigerated while they were being shipped.

Or the vagrant virus that you inhale without being aware of it—no way you could be aware of it—until you wind up sick as a dog and barfing your guts up three days later.

There are a lot of contingencies. And no matter HOW conscientious you are, you can never be sure when, how, or IF you might wind up in a hospital or doctor's office.

THINK!

I pay taxes and have ever since I started working while in college. I expect police protection when I need it. I expect fire protection when I need it. I expect the streets to be properly maintained. These things are paid for by my taxes. People more wealthy than I pay more than I do. People less wealthy pay less, and some, none at all. But they also need these services from time to time, just as we all do. No one can be immune from these hazards, no matter how careful they are. That's life.

Since health care is just as essential, I see no reason why it shouldn't be paid for the same way. Other countries do it that way, everyone is covered, rich and poor alike, and it works just fine, despite what the insurance companies and Fox News Service would have you believe.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:00 AM

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, Don. Gfs did say "Do I think there should be some sort of government run health care?...YES.... Should that be a reason to neglect our own health, or do something to improve our health, figuring someone else can pay for it?...NO!"

There's nothing I find about to argue with there. GfS is recommending BOTH a government-run health care plan AND greater efforts by individuals to live a healthy lifestyle.

Not "either or". "Both and." Sounds sensible to me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:03 AM

I don't think we are in agreement. S/he is saying that government run health care should only be a safety net. I don't agree with that at all. I think government run health care should be a way of life, and that health care should include wellness (preventative) care, wellness education, alternative care, as well as whatever care people need to help them have a decent quality of life.

Keeping government run health care as a safety net only insures that people will have much more expensive health problems and cost everyone else a lot more money in the long run.

In my own case, I have the early stage cataracts that I spoke of before. There is nothing I can do to correct that through how I live my life, and while I try to limit the amount of exposure to ultra violet light so as to try to prevent them from getting any worse, that is really impossible for me to do with all of the fluorescent light bulbs being used these days. And I can't afford right now to buy prescription sunglasses, so my exposure to sunlight is more than it probably should be. If I had health insurance that included vision, the chances that I would develop cataracts that would seriously impair my vision would be less than it is now.

Universal health care prevents health problems that cost everyone a lot of money. That's why countries with universal health care have better health statistics than the US has.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:13 AM

Yes, for sure, Carol. I too am in favor of a universal health plan such as exists in Canada...in fact I think it should be further extended to cover dental care and many forms of alternative treatment which have proven themselves beyond any shadow of a doubt by now.

What I am saying, though, is that GfS is not taking up nearly as extreme a position as I think Don is suggesting and that there are many areas in common between the three of you where you would agree. This doesn't mean you'd agree on every point. Don seems to be suggesting that GfS would agree with everything Fox endorses. I very much doubt that that is the case. GfS seems to me to be more of an independent thinker who thinks for himself (herself?) than someone who parrots Fox or any other special interest group.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:18 AM

Well, I'm not trying to argue Don's points. I have points of my own that I want to make. And that's what I've been doing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:24 AM

Carol and Little Hawk(yo-ho),

If I cause damage to someone, then it is my responsibility to make it right. So, I carry insurance for that, as per aforementioned. I expect the same from my fellow man(the 'do unto others" thing)..so I carry liability insurance. It is also the law, that if one does not want to carry liability, that you must have the means to cover damages you cause to anyone else, you cause injury to, either physical, or property. This can be done far cheaper, if you bought a bond, for 'X' amount, to match whatever you think an insurance policy would cover, and if you caused no one any damage, or if there is no claim against you, by the time the bond matures, you can cash it in, and keep it...then buy another bond for a fraction of the maturation value of the bond. 'Municipal AAA' bonds are the best for that.(Just in case you'd want to know).

But that aside, I've said, now multiple times, that I AM in favor, of some sort of Health Care Bill, that would cover medical, for those who are in need of it. Along with that, I am in favor, of some different rules, for insurance companies, that needlessly drive up the cost of health coverage, and for doctors, NOT to run up the cost of providing heath care...just because they can get more, from the insurance companies! That viscous cycle is the leading factor of making health cost go through the roof, along with lawyers and frivolous lawsuits...at the same time, doctors must be held accountable, not to perform shoddy, or unnecessary procedures.

I am not in favor of government bureaucrats, making medical decisions, where politics can be an influencing factor, in you getting the help you may need. I have VERY LITTLE confidence in the competency, of government agencies running things well, or cost effective!

But, what I can do, is take care of myself as best I can, and not dump that burden on someone else, for every little notion of dis-ease. What I eat, for instance plays way more into your physical health, than you may imagine. Being alkaline, is huge! Not taking reckless risks with your body, is another(though in that subject, one man's ceiling is another man's floor).

I'm against government funded abortions, unless there is a life threatening situation, and possibly rape, incest yadda radda cradda. In other words, the public should not have to pay, for little 'Janie' to abort her fetus, because she was too loose. If a woman has the right to control, over her own body, then control herself BEFORE she jumps in the sack with a 'bozo'! Perhaps if she addressed her priorities, she would not need an abortion. People's reproductive organs are not toys, or tools, to reassure one's 'desirability'. Now I'm sure that will bring squawks, but, too bad...and a bunch of 'what ifs'...but by in large, I think women certainly have the 'right' and obligation' to get their shit together, regarding this. MEN, nobody gives you the right, to use another woman's body, to scratch a passing itch, and not take responsibility, for the things you put into motion by that, both physically, and emotionally..then just walk away! UP YOURS!!

Any government program, to be executed well, must leave open, consequences to the public, for stupid behavior. You put your hand in the fire..you get burned...run to the government doc, fix it, then go out and burn your hand again?? I know that is a simplified example, but there are those out there, who are just plain simpletons, who screw it up, for everyone else! You want five abortions??...fuck you!
You want the public to pay for liposuction?...Breast augmentations?..face lifts?? ..tummy tucks??...Try developing your character, instead! The other problems will more than likely take care of themselves!

Now, instead of getting indignant, and arguing things that you feel you're entitled to, think of somewhere, in your life, that you can end some sort of self-destructive behavior to yourself....then, let's talk.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:36 AM

But if you don't have insurance, and you get the brain aneurysm that I mentioned before, that is congenital and not related to lifestyle, you will end up costing a lot of people a lot of money. But if you don't have insurance, unless you can pay out of pocket, you will have to give up your home (assuming you own one), and become indigent and get your care paid for by the taxpayers in the form of either medicaid or medicare.

And when you have car insurance, a lot of other people will be paying for the costs of any accidents that you are in. You will not be paying those costs yourself. That's what insurance is - spreading the risk and the costs associated with that risk - over the largest possible pool of financial contributors.

A government run insurance plan does not need to involve government employees making decisions about people's medical care. It can be run in such a way that the government only administers the insurance end of it and lets the doctors make the medical decisions. That whole thing about government bureaucrats getting between people and their doctors is a straw man.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:43 AM

Also, let's say for the sake of argument that the alkaline thing is true. How will people with very little money afford to do what is needed to correct their PH levels? And how will they even know about it if they don't ever hear about it or have access to the knowledge?

For most people, wellness requires education. Without that education, most people will have unhealthy habits because they are getting their training from the corporate interests that make their money from selling crap to people. Without a government run program to help educate people about healthy lifestyles, most people will not ever be educated about that. That is a part of getting the government involved in health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 03:53 PM

What GfS appears to be arguing is that, since there is a possibility that some people may be careless and irresponsible, everyone must be denied a solution that is widely needed, including to people who are not careless and irresponsible, that can be easily accomplished, and that works well in other countries.

I don't like to automatically classify someone as narrow-mineded and mean-spirited, but what would you call it? Certainly short-sightedness at best.

The Moral Issue:

It has often been said by philosophers and religious leaders alike that a society can by judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Some examples:

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members. ~ Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization. ~ Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. ~ John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877].

The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members – the last, the least, the littlest. ~ Cardinal Roger Hahony, in a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life.

The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged. ~ Bill Fererer

A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. ~ Pope John Paul II

And those are only a few of the massive chorus of thinkers who all say essentially the same thing.

The Practical Issue:

The following is from a speech made by Dr. Art Kellermann, an ER doctor at Atlanta's public health hospital, who also serves on the staff of Emory's medical school:

"You have no idea how much it costs to run our health care system this poorly. We spend two trillion dollars a year on health care, and a trillion dollars is a lot of money. For two trillion dollars we can take good care of everybody in this country, and have a lot left over. And you don't have to look outside the US for proof."

Who are the main beneficiaries of our present health care system? Not the people who can't afford health insurance, not those who do have health insurance but who are denied coverage on the basis of a "pre-existing condition" (despite how desperately they need the care), and not those who can't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition or because of genetic profiling (cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, etc., in the applicant's family).

The main beneficiaries of our primitive health care system are the insurance companies, who have a vested interest in keeping it that way.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:24 PM

""I don't think we are in agreement. S/he is saying that government run health care should only be a safety net. I don't agree with that at all. I think government run health care should be a way of life, and that health care should include wellness (preventative) care, wellness education, alternative care, as well as whatever care people need to help them have a decent quality of life.""

Exactly so, Carol. A safety net is, by definition, a catch all for those already falling.

The UK system devotes a considerable portion of its time and resources to Proactive rather than Reactive Care. We have available regular health checks and clinics devoted to reducing the need for treatment of illness by reducing the incidence of illness.

Even something like giving up smoking is covered as part of the NHS services, and if you sign up for it, the assistive drugs which normally cost over £20 for one month's supply, can be had on prescription for less than half price.

I keep hearing that it would never work in the USA, but that's what the pharmaceutical companies, and some doctors, said 70 years ago about the NHS.

Taking all into account, our system is very far from a simple safety net, and the argument about people being responsible for keeping themselves well, is lacking in credibility if one compares the prevalence and the degree of obesity UK versus USA.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM

I'm a libran, Don and Carol. (no, not a librarian! Heh!) Yes, I was born under the sign of Libra. I understand from my reading that this is the sign that seeks to establish harmony and concord. It is the sign of dimplomacy and of the search for peace and common ground.

That is probably why I often hasten to point out to people areas where they can find agreement and common ground on a divisive subject, rather than harping instead on what divides them. I think that you have all three (Don, Carol, and GfS) said some very useful things about health care and that you have much common ground. I wouldn't expect you to agree, however, on every single point.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:19 PM

Libra. Yup. That explains a lot.

The usual symbol for Libra is the statue of Justice holding up a scale. But Justice is also wearing a blindfold.

I'm a Gemini. I'm pretty good at seeing both sides of an issue. But I'm also gifted with a reasoning mind, so I'm able to winnow out what the crucial factors are and then come to a conclusion.

All very fascinating, but as Willie the Shake put it, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:12 PM

Blindfold! Oooooo...now yer gettin' nasty, Don. The blindfold is there to indicate justice's impartiality, not her inability to see the facts. Justice must be without prejudice or it's not justice. She doesn't see the color of the man's skin or what kind of clothes he's wearing, she only hears his testimony, and quite clearly.

As you say, Don, ""The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. . . ." Yes. That's right. Turn it back to yourself.

Now what are we each setting out to do here, you and I? I'm setting out to prove that everyone in the immediate discussion (meaning you, me, Carol, and GfS) has made some good and valuable points worth considering about health care, and that we all agree on some of them. That's a win-win scenario, based on mutual respect.

You appear bent on proving, however, that you are right and that someone else in the discussion is wrong. That's a win-lose scenario at other people's expense, based on not respecting them.

I think my scenario is mucb more positive than yours in that respect. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:21 PM

Keeeeerist, you take things seriously, Little Hawk! I'm not bent on proving I'm right and someone else in the discussion is wrong. I'm just trying to make my viewpoint known, just like everyone else, and our friend GfS takes exception to practically everything I say and keeps saying that it's stupid and not worth even trying to refute.

And YOU, Hawk, let that go without comment. And then you get on MY case!

Libra? Justice? Not so's you'd notice.

Push back from your computer for awhile and have a good think.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:10 PM

Sure thing, Don. Hey, hear's a song you might enjoy:

The Battle of the Alamo - 1836

85,000 were challenged by Travis to die
By a line that he drew with his sword when the battle was nigh
And him that would fight to the death cross over
But the others had better vamoose!
And over that line came three men, a pig, and a goose!

Hey—up! Santa Ana, we're killing your soldiers below
So the rest of Texas will know, and remember the Alamo!

'Twas Travis and Bowie and Crockett who dared to remain
And the pig and the goose crossed over the line unashamed
But 84,998 Texans were lacking in grit
The sight of the Mexican Army had caused them to shit

Hey—up! Santa Ana, we're fleeing your soldiers below
So the rest of Texas will know, when we're far from the Alamo!

So 84,000 came pouring out over the walls
While another 600 tried to hide in the urinal stalls
Fifty men ran for the pigpen, twenty-eight jumped in the well
320 were trampled to death when they fell

And the 84,000 came pouring out over the walls
When the Mexicans saw that mob coming, they were plainly appalled
They threw down their rifles, abandoned their cannons
And frantically fled from the field
As the goose honked in joy and the pig triumphantly squealed:

Hey—up! Santa Ana, we're killing your soldiers below
So the rest of Texas will know, and remember the Alamo!

88,000 men scattered like shot from a gun
The Texans and Mexicans showed the world how they could run
They ran for the rivers, they ran for the hills, they dug holes and hid in the dirt
Santa Ana lost both of his boots, his hat, and his shirt

Hey—up! Santa Ana, we're killing your soldiers below
So the rest of Texas will know, and remember the Alamo!

"We've won," cried out Travis, in wonder, "and the glory's all mine!"
"Like hell!" growled Jim Bowie, "I outrank you, and you ain't worth a dime!"
Then up stepped bold Davie Crockett, his rifle held firm in his hand
Said, "If there's to be one lone survivor here, I am that man!"

Hey—up! Santa Ana, we're killing your soldiers below
So the rest of Texas will know, and remember the Alamo!

Jim Bowie was found with a bayonet stuck in his chest
While Travis lay dead with a bullet hole right through his breast
And poor Davie Crockett lay cold as a sprocket, the Bowie knife deep in his heart
While the goose and the pig danced a jig on the bloody ramparts!

Hey—up! Santa Ana, we're killing your soldiers below
So the rest of Texas will know, and remember the Alamo!

Santa Ana was ruined, he had to go back in disgrace
He'd lost half of his army, but worse than that, he'd lost face
The pig and the goose caught a train to Ohio where they got a good job at the zoo
And the Alamo stands as the proof that this story is true!

Hey—up! Santa Ana, we're killing your soldiers below
So the rest of Texas will know, and remember the Alamo!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 12:11 AM

I'm a Capricorn. We just keep on doing our thing until we get where we're going.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:31 AM

Well, I should perhaps explain that I am about as interested in astrology as I am in George Bush's daily shopping list at Loblaws or wherever he goes. I know practically nothing about astrology, I don't relate to it, I find it utterly tedious, and I start falling asleep when an astrology enthusiast tries to tell me about my chart, my rising sign, and all that stuff... ;-) Bor-ring!!! It's not that I'm against it, I'm just not interested in it, that's all.

The only thing I know about it at all is that Librans are said to be found of peace and harmony and that they will usually try to establish harmony and compromise when there is a dispute. That's pretty much the sum of my astrological knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:34 AM

I don't see how the Democrats are supporting the massive cuts in Medicare, and still enjoy support from the AARP.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 11:19 AM

They're not cutting the Medicare benefits that seniors receive. They're only cutting out the waste and fraud that doesn't benefit seniors in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

Wrong, Carol. The cuts will decimate Medicare Advantage. So I will be awaiting apologies from those who screamed that I was an alarmist and incorrect when I wrote that Obama lied when he said that "If you like the health care plan that you have now, you can keep it." Those of us who have had, and were well satisfied with the plans we have will NOT be able to keep our plans. I realize, of course, that all of us are old and most of us are not facing fifty year futures, so we should be delighted to sacrifice or health care for others less fortunate, but I doubt most of us look at it that way.

As to AARP, I will not use the language to describe how I feel about that subsidiary of the Democratic Party. Joe wouldn't like it, and if he allowed it, I couldn't do it on an open forum like this.

DougR

P.S. I don't seriously expect any apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:26 PM

Why be surprised, Doug? All presidents lie. It's a requirement of the job. The surprise is when they don't lie...it happens rarely, but it should be savoured fully whenever it does.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:05 PM

DougR, please show some evidence that the cuts will "decimate" Medicare Advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:06 PM

"Medicare Advantage" is one of many optional PRIVATE insurance supplemental policy add-ons to the socialistic Medicare ypu're so fond of, Douggie-boy. Ya got a problem, take it up with the insurance companies.

As to AARP, I will not use the language to describe how I feel about that subsidiary of the Democratic Party...

And if ever evidence was needed that Douggie Boy can only operate in a fact-free enviromnent, here's your proof.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:17 PM

Are my tax dollars paying for Doug's Medicare Advantage? If so, and if they are committing fraud and wast with my tax dollars (while I have no access to any health care whatever), then if they get their funding cut back, all I have to day to DougR is this...

TOUGH TITTIES

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:18 PM

*fraud and waste

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:54 PM

Are you describing the AARP Carol?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:57 PM

Is that the Aardvark Recovery Program?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM

Does AARP receive taxpayer funds?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

That's about the type response I expected.

Carol:The Democrats have not attempted to hide the fact that a large part of the Medicare cuts will come from subsidies to private insurance companies that manage the Medicare Advantage program. Perhaps the reason so many old folks like me like the program is it is so well run. That's probably because it's not run by the government, it's managed by private insurance providers.

If the elimination of waste in the Medicare program is the goal overhaul of the health care program would not be required to do that. Any efficient operator public or private should do that anyway.

Can't wait till the 2010 congressional elections. There's gonna be a lot of new Republican faces in both houses after that election.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 06:23 PM

Carol:The Democrats have not attempted to hide the fact that a large part of the Medicare cuts will come from subsidies to private insurance companies that manage the Medicare Advantage program. Perhaps the reason so many old folks like me like the program is it is so well run. That's probably because it's not run by the government, it's managed by private insurance providers.

They're saying that the cuts are going to be the waste, fraud, and abuse that they say is a big problem with Medicare. If they're saying they're going to cut subsidies to private companies that manage programs like Medicare Advantage, it must be because they have identified waste, fraud, and abuse that those companies are engaging in. If they cut out that waste, fraud, and abuse, the profits those companies realize may decrease, but that doesn't concern me. If 47 million people have to go without health insurance, and 45,000 people have to die each year because of that, just so your deluxe private insurance provider can make a bigger profit off of the taxpayers' money, then just too bad if you don't like it.

Talk about selfish. Maybe you should go find yourself an ice flow and do the honorable thing so more people can live.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 06:42 PM

Doug, this business about "more Republican faces" or "more Democratic faces" in both houses come next election...and the hopeful expectation thereof on the part of millions like yourself...is the longest-running and probably the stupidest soap opera in history. It's guaranteed to reverse itself at predictable intervals...but nothing much really changes. That's the method of the drama, and it's primary purpose is to keep you entertained and distracted. (and at each other's throats, of course)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 09:20 AM

You're right again, Little Hawk. It's time for the American public to take a look and see who is benefiting from this ongoing food-fight.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:27 PM

Carol C: Whatever.

L.H.: Usually, when one political party here replaces the majority held by the other, there is a rush to get changes made (just as is the case with the current majority)but then the party gets a bit too ambitious and greedy, and an election or two down the line, the other party takes the majority. It think that will happen in 2010. If is does, I just hope the Republicans don't blow it like they did the last time.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:39 PM

Yes, Doug, that's exactly what usually happens. It is what will normally happen in any system that's been divided up into two mutually hostile teams who are out to beat each other on the playing field as soon as the game commences...same as 2 football teams. They both go for the win, and they use any tactic they can to secure it...and will cheat too, if they can get away with it. This results in a permanently divided society that is full of suppressed hostility and resentment.

It doesn't seem like a wise or relevant way to run a society to me. That's why James Madison and some of your other founding fathers strongly warned against the danger of the rise of political parties. That's why I don't believe in political parties. I do, however, strongly believe in free democratic elections at regular intervals with a variety of candidates on the slate...but NOT through the mechanism of political parties, that's all.

I believe in an elected national assembly that is NOT divided up along party lines, but that represents the various (and many) views of all its seated members, each of whom has an equal say. I believe that those members could easily choose from among themselves a steering committee with a chief executive and officers, and they could do that by holding a vote amongst themselves.

It would make a lot more sense and cause a lot less spending, trouble, and waste than does your present party-based system, and it would free your public from the tyrrany of political party machines who really represent nothing but their own lust for power.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:07 PM

Don Froth:"I don't like to automatically classify someone as narrow-mineded and mean-spirited, but what would you call it? Certainly short-sightedness at best."..........
.............Y_A-A-A-WN

What kind of coverage do you have?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 01:31 AM

Carol C: Whatever.

Yeah, good point. Let them eat cake. Right? You're got yours, fuck everyone else.

You say you paid into the system so it's only fair for you to be able to get back out of the system what you put into it. There's a lot of people who have worked hard all their lives and paid their fair share into the Medicare system, who won't live long enough to get their money back out of it, because they don't have access to any health care. Those people are paying for your medical care now. Fuck 'em, right?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:28 AM

One pays taxes into a social system so that everyone will be safe, not just so that oneself will be safe. At least, that's why I do it. What use is "community" if we don't watch out for each other?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 08:34 AM

Yes, Carol has a good point. People who are trapped between the ages of around 55 and 65 in the US, if they have some problem that prevents them from working at a job with health coverage, they are just simply stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 09:05 AM

""One pays taxes into a social system so that everyone will be safe, not just so that oneself will be safe. At least, that's why I do it. What use is "community" if we don't watch out for each other?""

You are correct, LH, but you are wasting your time trying to get that concept over to Doug and similar repubs.

As I've said above, and Carol just confirmed.....They've got theirs, and f**k the rest.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:12 AM

Earlier than 55, Riginslinger. Anyone with pre-existing conditions, regardless of age, and everyone above the age that Insurance companies also consider to be a pre-existing condition (I don't know what that is, but I'm confident it's well below 55).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:39 AM

That's been the motto of the Republican Party since Ronnie RayGun:

" I've Got Mine, Jack! "

The amazing and disheartening thing is they've managed to hornswaggle so many people into voting against their own interests.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM

The motto of the Republican party is "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too". That's why the redistribution of wealth always goes from the bottom to the top during Republican governments.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: MARINER
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:58 PM

You can shout and bawl at each other for ever and get nowhere. The fact remains that the mark of any civilised society is how it looks after it's elderly and vulnerable.The USA fails this standard miserably and you should all hang your heads in shame.(According to the W.H.O the US ranks 37th in the world for health care, I wonder does that bullshitter Glen Beck know that?)I am a UK old age pensioner who lives in the Republic of Ireland and am entitled to free health care in either jurisdiction. I also receive various benefits from the Irish Government, ie, free tv licence, free travel on public transport,free phone,and more . When I travel to other European countries I have a card that entitles me to medical treatment in whatever country I am in. I have been hospitalised over here on numerous occasions receiving excellent care every time and the only thing I had to provide was my National Insurance number.If I can't be treated fast enough here there are facilities available for me to be sent to England for treatment. Ok ,it's not perfect and it has it's bad side but all I can say is,Thank the Lord for the National Health System .

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:30 PM

Mariner, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say.

The only thing I would object to is your statement that we (Americans) "should all hang your heads in shame."

There are many Americans who have been fighting for a national health system in this country for years. I remember the arguments for such a system since I was a teenage, and I'm pushing eighty. The opposing cry was always something like, "But that's socialized medicine!" as if that was any kind of rational argument. We have "socialized" (paid for by taxes) police and fire protection, along with streets and highways, parks, libraries, and on and on. Yet, one of the most essential services for the well-being of the citizens is being denied because of a distaste for an ideology that we have accepted as perfectly normal in many other areas.

Most recent attempts have been made by the Clintons, and now by the Obama administration. But they both made the same mistake.

There will never be a national health care system in this country as long as the insurance companies have any voice in the matter.

But, of course, the insurance companies own most of Congress. There are politicians who can't be bought (e.g., Washington State's Congressional Representative Jim McDermott, whom I have supported and campaigned for for years) who can't be bought, but with rare exceptions like him, America has some of the best politicians that money can buy!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM

You have exactly identified the problem, Don. The private health insurance industry owns most of the politicians in Congress (through lobbying...meaning bribery), and as long as that situation endures the problem with the USA's health system will remain essentially unchanged.

There are a few voices like McDermott and Kucinich who tell the truth about the situation, but they are in a very small minority.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: MARINER
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:51 PM

Sorry Don, I should have specified, I meant Don and his ilk .

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: MARINER
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:54 PM

Oops sorry Don that should read DOUG and his ilk. The old eyes are starting to fail. I will have to book an eye test tomorrow, free of course!.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:59 PM

Carol C, Don T: as I said, whatever.

It's a bit ingenuous, don't you think, for you to say "I have mine" when the whole point of the post was to say that if you get yours, I lose mine.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM

How about if everyone got coverage, Doug? Like in Canada, the UK or western Europe. Then you wouldn't lose a thing.

Alas, that is NOT the package your government is trying to enact.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:06 PM

Sorry, Carol C., Don T., that should have read "disingenuous."

L.H.: No, L.H., that's not the type program the Democrats are pushing.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:10 PM

It sure isn't, Doug. And you know why? Because the American private health insurance industry has enough money in hand to control the majority of people in Congress and prevent such a plan from ever being legislated.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:14 PM

Exactly right, Doug.

Fox News tells you that it can't be done. We can't do it! And yet most other industrialized countries—and some countries that we like to consider "third world"—have a good, functioning national health care system.

Do you—and Fox News—mean to say that we Americans are unable to do it as well as, say Taiwan? Where's that old Yankee ingenuity? That good ol' Yankee know-how?

Down the tubes, I guess. Pity! This used to be a great "can do!" country.

wimpy wimpy wimpy wimpy wimpy. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:14 PM

Except for the fact that Douggie-boy won't lose under the proposed legislation, he's right on the money- as usual.

Once again, he operates in a fact-free environment.

BUT, as people have oft remarked, he's a selfish, misinformed, ignorant, I've-got-mine-f**k-The-Rest "gentleman".

Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:17 PM

You won't lose anything at all, Doug. Your private insurance carrier may lose some of their profits, but you will still get the same medical care you're getting now, and it will still be paid for by the taxpayers. The only difference is that the people who are paying your medical bills but don't have any access to medical care themselves, will also be able to get that care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:26 AM

They'll reduce Medicare reimbursement 21% but benefits and quality of care will be just the same? I really don't think so. (Or maybe just maybe they are liars full of bullshit about the 21%. No, no maybes about it. We are being fed a cornucopia of lies.)

They'll cut out fraud and waste? When and where on the planet has that ever happened? Not in America. What they will do is manipulate Medicare benefits with cost control "efficiency" measures. They will do something similar to everyone else as well with their control over policy mandates.

Free FREE FREE! Everybody in the UK gets tons of FREE shit and guess what: It's popular! No shit Sherlock.

If Jack in the Box coffee was free it would be really popular.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 03:41 AM

From what I've been reading so far, that 21% reduction in the Medicare reimbursement rate appears to be an automatic reduction that has been scheduled for some time now, and hasn't got anything to do with the health care reform bills that are being worked on in Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 03:57 AM

Yup. The reduction has nothing to do with the health care reform bills being considered. It's an automatic reduction that is triggered by a formula called the "sustainable growth rate". That reduction will take place regardless of whether or not Congress passes a health care reform bill. Here's how it works...


"Reimbursement for Part B services

Payment for physician services under Medicare has evolved since the program was created in 1965. Initially, Medicare compensated physicians based on the physician's charges, and allowed physicians to bill Medicare beneficiaries the amount in excess of Medicare's reimbursement. In 1975, annual increases in physician fees were limited by the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). The MEI was designed to measure changes in costs of physician's time and operating expenses, adjusted for changes in physician productivity. From 1984 to 1991, the yearly change in fees was determined by legislation. This was done because physician fees were rising faster than projected.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 made several changes to physician payments under Medicare. Firstly, it introduced the Medicare Fee Schedule, which took effect in 1992. Secondly, it limited the amount Medicare non-providers could balance bill Medicare beneficiaries. Thirdly, it introduced the Medicare Volume Performance Standards (MVPS) as a way to control costs.[33]

On January 1, 1992, Medicare introduced the Medicare Fee Schedule (MFS). The MFS assigned Relative Value Units (RVUs) for each procedure from the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). The Medicare reimbursement for a physician was the product of the RVU for the procedure, a Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for geographic variations in payments, and a global Conversion Factor (CF) which converts RBRVS units to dollars.

From 1992 to 1997, adjustments to physician payments were adjusted using the MEI and the MVPS, which essentially tried to compensate for the increasing volume of services provided by physicians by decreasing their reimbursement per service.

In 1998, Congress replaced the VPS with the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). This was done because of highly variable payment rates under the MVPS. The SGR attempts to control spending by setting yearly and cumulative spending targets. If actual spending for a given year exceeds the spending target for that year, reimbursement rates are adjusted downward by decreasing the Conversion Factor (CF) for RBRVS RVUs.

Since 2002, actual Medicare Part B expenditures have exceeded projections.

In 2002, payment rates were cut by 4.8%. In 2003, payment rates were scheduled to be reduced by 4.4%. However, Congress boosted the cumulative SGR target in the Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003 (P.L. 108-7), allowing payments for physician services to rise 1.6%. In 2004 and 2005, payment rates were again scheduled to be reduced. The Medicare Modernization Act (P.L. 108-173) increased payments 1.5% for those two years.

In 2006, the SGR mechanism was scheduled to decrease physician payments by 4.4%. (This number results from a 7% decrease in physician payments times a 2.8% inflation adjustment increase.) Congress overrode this decrease in the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-362), and held physician payments in 2006 at their 2005 levels. Similarly, another congressional act held 2007 payments at their 2006 levels, and HR 6331 held 2008 physician payments to their 2007 levels, and provided for a 1.1% increase in physician payments in 2009. Without further continuing congressional intervention, the SGR is expected to decrease physician payments from 25% to 35% over the next several years.

MFS has been criticized for not paying doctors enough because of the low conversion factor. By adjustments to the MFS conversion factor, it is possible to make global adjustments in payments to all doctors.[34]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Payment_for_services

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:23 AM

Apparently, Democrats in both the House and Senate were trying to pass into law a bill that would eliminate the "sustainable growth rate" as a means to determine the reimbursement rate. The bill was passed in the House, but defeated in the Senate. The Republicans opposed the bill.

So there you go, Doug. Your buddies in the Republican Party are cutting back your Medicare benefits by a large percentage. Unless Congress passes another temporary fix for 2010 as they have done for the past several years.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM

Time will tell I suppose.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 03:45 PM

""It's a bit ingenuous, don't you think, for you to say "I have mine" when the whole point of the post was to say that if you get yours, I lose mine.""

That comment was untue when you first made it, and a hundred, or a thousand, repetitions won't make it true.

Sorry Doug, but it's bollocks. You won't lose it, and you will get it cheaper if you, and people like you wake up to the fact that being ripped off is NOT the only game in town.

Use you brain, if any, then get behind it, and PUSH!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:08 PM

Use you brain, if any...

Now, you've put your finger right on the problem- no brains need apply.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:19 PM

Don't take alot of brains to know where the campaign checks come from...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 09:54 PM

"(iv) REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH- Any research published under clause (ii)(IV) shall be within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence and findings produced under the contract with the Institute under this subparagraph. If the Institute determines that those requirements are not met, the Institute shall not enter into another contract with the agency, instrumentality, or entity which managed or conducted such research for a period determined appropriate by the Institute (but not less than 5 years)."

"Any research published under clause (ii)(IV) shall be within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence and findings produced under the contract with the Institute under this subparagraph. "



The incompetent imbeciles are now in an orgy of wordsmithing to prove their worth. And going for control.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unveiled on November 18, which combines legislation passed by the Senate Finance and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees, establishes a new, independent, nonprofit, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others.

The bill allows for publication of research conducted under contract to the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute in a peer-reviewed journal or other publications, it also allows the new Institute, at its discretion, to withhold funding from any institution whose researchers publish results that are "not within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence."

This Legislation is horrifying to watch. What is publication of "research" in the first place? Does it mean something different than publication of "evidence" or "findings" or "results," so as to encompass interpretations, recommendations and conclusions? How can something be "entirely consistent" without mere regurgitation? Did they mean to say "not inconsistent"? (Or, simply, "consistent"?)

Can't they have a sentence, if they think they really, really need it, that says: You will not publish lies or misleading interpretations of research results we paid for"? (Instead we have pages and pages of letters and words.) Why such a need, ALREADY, to be taking control of information and free speech?

I've got a bad feeling about all this.

(p.s. Will the Institute be paying for research supporting the course content at the free teen-lifestyle coping and management classes?)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 10:35 PM

Heric, where did you get the excerpts you provided in your 07 Dec 09 - 09:54 PM post?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:17 PM

here at page 1,657

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 01:11 AM

You know what's really strange? On that 2,074 page bill I provided the link for, about quality, affordable health care, at page 1, it says its purpose is "To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first time buyer's credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes."

That sure is a lot of other purposes. I'm glad our Congresspersons are able to follow all of this, not even missing a trick like reimbursement rates for bone density scanning being too low.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 02:21 AM

Any research published under clause (ii)(IV) shall be within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence and findings produced under the contract with the Institute under this subparagraph

I think what this means is that if research is conducted under contract with the institute, and if someone wants to publish that research, what is published must be consistent with the research itself. It's saying that if any evidence and findings are produced under the contract, people who want to publish them must ensure that they will not be misrepresented in any way, or they or their agency will not be awarded any contracts for a minimum of five years.

They're saying don't lie about the results of your research if you publish. Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:30 AM

Yes, don't lie about results of research we paid for. You and I can understand and accept that. (Hardly even needs a line the legislation.)

But look at the wordsmithing. In *their discretion* everything you write must be "entirely consistent" with what they think the research should mean (remember a lot of interpreting has to go on with numbers derived in medical research) or they will terminate your institution's contract for no less than five years.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:36 AM

In the real world this would mean if they don't want something published, all they would have to do is say so, as a general rule.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:58 AM

I don't see anywhere in that language where it talks about what the research means. As far as I can see, it only talks about the evidence and facts. That looks to me like data, not interpretations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:11 AM

Exactly! They don't care if its vague. Step one in drafting is to define the terms. Data means data but they chose not to use that word. Vague works entirely in their favor.

I'm not saying this is a grand world conspiracy, either, just another piece of evidence of how government works.

Their task was to find a way to provide wide access to health coverage without risk of unfair denial, and do so in a financially sustainable, and financially rational way.

But given an opportunity to design an elephant they will build an elephant. And increase their power over it. Not because it's right, or necessary, or that they are competent to handle it - just because they can.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:16 AM

Yeah. It's clumsy. But for those of us with no access to health care, it's still better than what we have now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 09:37 PM

Word has it that the "public option" is gone!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:10 PM

I was watching that on the news, Rig...Every poll shows the American public opposes this bill, now. Thought about pointing that out, being as our 'representatives' are supposed to be representing US, not feeding us the political line...of lies!
That being said, and as I've repeatedly said, YES, we need health care REFORM, not a whole, new bill of bad goods!
Nice to hear from you again,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:27 PM

There is no "this bill" yet. There is no bill yet. There is a selection of possible bills that are being considered and modified in order to try to put together the best possible one. But there is no bill yet for the public to oppose.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:26 PM

The Senate has caved in to Senator Lieberman and rejected the public option. They still have to reconcile with the House, which could be difficult without the public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM

I don't really believe this gentleman's predictions for the future will all pan out, but he is a persuasive proponent who sticks to the issues:

Getting the Facts Straight on Health Care Reform

December 2nd, 2009

Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D.

The United States stands on the verge of the most significant change to our health care system since the 1965 introduction of Medicare. The bill that was passed by the House and a parallel bill before the Senate would cover most uninsured Americans, saving thousands of lives each year and putting an end to our status as the only developed country that places so many of its citizens at risk for medical bankruptcy. Moreover, the bills would accomplish this aim while reducing the federal deficit over the next decade and beyond. They would reform insurance markets, lower administrative costs, increase people's insurance choices, and provide "insurance for the insured" by disallowing medical underwriting and the exclusion of preexisting conditions. And the Senate bill in particular would move us closer to taming the uncontrolled increase in health care
spending that threatens to bankrupt our society.

Despite the many reasons to be excited about this legislative breakthrough, skeptics abound. Their criticism is only going to get louder as the bill is debated on the Senate floor over the next few weeks. But the primary criticisms of the bills are largely unwarranted.

One common refrain of opponents of reform is that it represents a government takeover of health care. But reformers made the key decision at the start of this process to eschew a government-driven redesign of our health care system in favor of building on the private insurance system that works for most Americans. The primary role of the government in this reform is as a financier of the tax credits that individuals will use to purchase health insurance from private companies through state-organized exchanges. In Massachusetts, which passed a similar reform in 2006, private health insurance has expanded dramatically. The public insurance alternative that is included in the Senate bill simply adds another competitor - on a level playing field - to the insurance market, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that it will enroll only a tiny minority of Americans.

A second criticism is that the bills are budget busters. This is simply incorrect. Both bills are completely paid for - indeed, both would reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the coming decade. And the CBO estimates that both would reduce the deficit even more in the long run, particularly the Senate bill with its strong cost-containment measures. Some argue that the bills won't reduce the deficit because Congress won't follow through on its cost-reduction plans, as it has failed to do with the sustainable-growth-rate program for Medicare's physician payments. But this one example has been ridiculously overused, given the sizable Medicare reductions that Congress has made in the past; the proposed reduction in Medicare spending is less than half of the percentage reduction enacted in 1997, for example. To oppose a bill because of a misplaced fear that the government cannot keep its promises is essentially to shut down the legislative process.

In addition, some claim that the bills are an attack on Medicare and argue that it is unfair to pay for expanded coverage by reducing overpayments to hospitals and to the private insurers that offer Medicare Advantage plans. It's ironic that the people taking this position are often the same ones who make the first criticism (Medicare, after all, is a government-run insurance system) or the second (if the government will never follow through on its promises, we needn't worry about reduced payments). In any case, there is substantial evidence that reducing these overpayments will not harm the health of Medicare patients - just the pocketbooks of those who profit from them. This reform would simply use market bidding to set the reimbursement rate for Medicare Advantage plans, rather than setting administrative prices, which have traditionally been much too high; and it would reduce payments to hospitals by a small percentage, while tying them to outcome measures. Moreover, the dollars that are raised will save thousands of lives each year by increasing insurance coverage among the nonelderly.

The bills are also said to impose unaffordable mandates on individuals. Without the individual mandate, fundamental insurance-market reform is impossible and we cannot cover the majority of the uninsured. But an individual mandate without financial assistance for low-income families is unethical. Both bills contain billions of dollars in subsidies to help families pay for health insurance - and an exclusion from the mandate for families that still find coverage unaffordable. Rather than imposing an unaffordable mandate, these bills would finally guarantee that almost all Americans could find affordable insurance.

Some argue that the bills would harm the privately insured. But although a primary focus of reform has been on helping the uninsured, the bills also deliver enormous benefits to the privately insured. Americans who previously purchased insurance in an overpriced, unpredictable no group insurance market will have the ease and certainty of buying through an organized marketplace where insurance loads are lower, prices do not vary according to health status, and preexisting conditions cannot be excluded from coverage. CBO data show that the average enrollee in the new exchanges will either pay substantially less or obtain more generous coverage than the average person in today's nongroup insurance market.

Employees of small businesses that enroll in the exchange will also benefit from the lower prices and wide variety of health plan choices available to larger groups, and their employers will benefit from a small-business tax credit. Employees in large businesses will benefit from a shifting of their employers' money from excessively expensive insurance to increased wages. Most important for the insured, this reform will start us down the road to fundamental cost control, which will reduce costs for everyone in the long run.

Some critics also argue, however, that the bills don't do enough to control costs. This argument ignores fundamental reforms in the Senate bill in particular, which includes a four-pronged attack on health care costs. First, it imposes a tax on high-cost insurance plans that willput pressure on insurers and employers to keep the cost of insurance down, while delivering $234 billion in wage income to workers over the next decade.4 Second, it includes funds and a structure for comparative-effectiveness research that will provide the information necessary to guide our health care system toward care that works and away from care that doesn't. Third, it establishes a Medicare advisory board with the power to set rates (subject to an up-or-down vote by Congress) if costs grow too rapidly. Finally, it sets up an innovation center within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and launches pilot projects to explore alternative reimbursement and organizational structures that could transform the delivery of care.

This argument also misses the important point that universal coverage is vital for cost control. Most of the reforms that are aimed at controlling costs work through changes in the ways in which insurers reimburse and organize care. These changes can't work if an ever-growing proportion of our population lacks insurance. Moreover, as we have seen in Massachusetts, dealing with the problem of the uninsured allows policymakers to focus more single-mindedly on cost control: after our universal-coverage law passed, the state moved aggressively to set up a cost-control commission that recommended important changes in provider reimbursement.

The current bills are not perfect. The Senate bill has a mandate that's too weak and doesn't provide generous enough insurance to low-income individuals, and the House bill doesn't do enough to control costs. Nevertheless, passage of a hybrid of these bills would be a major accomplishment and a turning point for our dysfunctional health care system. We should constructively support Congress's efforts to create a combined bill, rather than leveling unsubstantiated criticisms from the sidelines.

This article (10.1056/NEJMp0911715) was published on December 2, 2009, at NEJM.org.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM

Carol: I have read very little and I think a lot of it hasn't been released, but this "abandonment" of the public option may not be bad at all. It sounds as if they are going to open Medicare to those who need it (age 55 and up) and FEHBA equivalent to some/many? who need it. Rate setting unknown but both to have premium subsidies available.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: mg
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 06:55 PM

I am totally for health care reform so don't bother to say I am not. I think it must be done, even badly at first, and straighten out as we go. Right now open the floodgates to nurses and other medical people by giving low income applicants free ride to training. Consider some training in Spanish to start with and perhaps other languages..Maine has nursing in French programs. Perhaps Russian, Ukranian, etc. But Spanish for sure. Bypass the need to think and treat and communicate in a non-dominant language. Train prisoners in health care fields.

I want people to tell the truth though..and the truth as I see it is yes, there will be major trouble in a transition period. We can deal with it. I don't want people called idiots etc. who point this out.

By the way, just read in Canada, which I love and admire their system..but anyway, males and female in the same rooms in hospitals? This is not an internet rumor..was in either Seattle Times or Portland Oregonian I think on editorial page a couple of weeks ago. For sure we don't need that.

Anyway, full steam ahead. Do this with honesty and courage and a way to sweep up the messes left its wake. Don't be ignorant/arrogant and think you can change something this big flawlessly..won't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 07:12 PM

"Right now open the floodgates to nurses and other medical people by giving low income applicants free ride to training."


                  Best idea I've seen today. That would really do something for health care, both in making it accessable, and lowering the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 12:19 AM

So, heric, you think it's a great idea to lower the age limit to admit people as young as 55 to participate in Medicare?

Tell me, under pending legislation, Medicare is going to be cut 500 Billion dollars, and the whole Medicare program is projected to go broke in seven years. If the dumbat Democrats pass a bill enabling fifty million more people to be eligible to buy into Medicare, where is the money coming from to support Medicare?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 12:31 AM

Doug, Doug--the proposal (and that's all it is at present) would have the new Medicare enrolees pay their own way.

The bothersome thing, to me, is that the proposed legislation does little or nothing towards reducing costs. Forcing folks to buy insurance without rigorously controlling what they would have to pay is more than just pimping for the Health Insurance comapnies---it's outright robbery.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:06 AM

According to Olympia Snow, it's going to cost those who would be covered by Medicare between the ages of 55 and 64, $7,600 annually in premiums, until 2014 when the subsidies will kick in. If that's what we're getting, JtS and I are totally fucked. That's more than $15,000 per year in premiums for the two of us. We just don't have that kind of money. If we did, we could buy private insurance right now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:23 AM

CarolC:"According to Olympia Snow, it's going to cost those who would be covered by Medicare between the ages of 55 and 64, $7,600 annually in premiums, until 2014 when the subsidies will kick in. If that's what we're getting, JtS and I are totally fucked. That's more than $15,000 per year in premiums for the two of us. We just don't have that kind of money. If we did, we could buy private insurance right now."

Carol, I absolutely agree and believe you! You know why? On the radio, last night while resting in bed, something I posted earlier, was now making news! The insurance companies are the biggest backers, and lobbyists for the 'health care' bill! You know why? Its their bail out to keep from paying medical costs for all the baby boomers, getting older, and they want to get out of paying what it will take!

Thought that would blow your mind!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:39 AM

The insurance industry doesn't support health care reform. They are doing everything they possibly can to make sure that what will eventually pass for health care reform will be as close to the status quo as possible, with the exception that they want more corporate welfare from the taxpayers. They should be taken out back and shot.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:42 AM

And by the way, they are totally against the House bill, because that one includes a robust public option. The reason the Senate dropped the public option is because Senators like Lieberman and Lincoln are completely in the pockets of the insurance industry.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:58 AM

CarolC:"The insurance industry doesn't support health care reform."

That's what they've been trying to promote in the press...that's what they want you to believe, but its not true. Re-read what I posted, carefully. The insurance companies are hustling us!!

It's all messed up! They are corrupting politicians, to allow themselves more corruption. I know it sounds contrary to everything we've heard, except in little bits and pieces....but it is the insurance providers opting out!! Do you think they want to pay for the boomers' medical costs??...or run with the bucks they've made?..and let the government pay for it?

Thoughtful Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:18 AM

Carol, I was just on my way to bed, and I remembered, and had to tell you, Kucinich, is the one who has objected to it, and blew the whistle on it! I'm sure with your search engine and a little looking, you can find out more about it! If, and when you do, keep us posted!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:30 AM

What the insurance industry is supporting is not health care reform. It is a preservation of the status quo. They most likely do support what the Senate has decided to do with regard to expanding Medicare. But that alone is not health care reform. Expanding Medicare to everyone would be health care reform. Expanding it only to people 55 and older is not health care reform. That is what you are saying they are trying to do - shed the weight of the baby boomers. But that is not health care reform. That is a preservation of the status quo with the only difference being that they get more corporate welfare.

I repeat, what the health care industry is peddling is not health care reform - it is a preservation of the status quo with more corporate welfare for them. It is the opposite of health care reform.

To expand Medicare to everyone would be single payer not for profit, which is exactly what Kucinich wants. But what the Senate is doing is destroying any chance of real health care reform, and that is precisely what the insurance industry wants. Because if we had real health care reform, they wouldn't be able to make such obscene profits at the expense of the taxpayers, and as long as it is possible for corporations to buy lawmakers, they will get whatever they want.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:32 AM

I should rephrase this part:

I repeat, what the insurance industry is peddling is not health care reform - it is a preservation of the status quo with more corporate welfare for them. It is the opposite of health care reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:41 AM

And by the way, GfS, I find myself thinking that you think I'm stupid. I said the insurance industry is against the public option, which you have ignored and you are still trying to foist an obvious misrepresentation of the facts to me and thinking I will fall for it. You are trying to make me believe that because the insurance industry supports what the Senate has just done, that means they support health care reform, even though all of the real health care reform initiatives, like single payer not for profit for everyone, and a robust public option, have been vigorously opposed by them. They support an initiative that will hurt me and my husband and that I don't support myself, and you expect me to believe that this is health care reform and their support of it is evidence that the insurance industry supports health care reform. I find myself thinking maybe you work for the insurance industry yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 01:34 PM

Carol, I was posting what was on the radio. According to the report, the insurance companies being against the bill, is a smokescreen. Kucinich, who is VERY liberal,(but an honest guy, in my opinion) raised the issue, and objected very strongly when he found out what was going on.
Yes, I think this bill sucks,..but this tidbit is not in support of that opinion..it's just a whole other side that is being kept from the public's view...but the words out now!
Thank you, Kucinich!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 02:02 PM

When you say, "the bill", in order for your statements to be correct, "the bill" has to be defined as the proposal to expand Medicare to those who are between the ages of 55 and 64, which is not the same thing as health care reform. It cannot be defined to include the public option or Medicare for all. Now that the public option has been effectively killed in the Senate and they are leaning toward only expanding Medicare to people over the age of 55, the insurance companies are declaring victory. This is not a surprise to me or anyone else who has been paying attention to the ways in which the insurance industry is trying to screw over the US health care consumer.

I have never been in favor of expanding Medicare to only those 55 and above, and I know that Kucinich has never been in favor of that, either. So I must conclude that the radio program you heard it on must have been an arm of the corporate propaganda machine. Because the way they are framing the issue is dishonest and designed to mislead.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 05:17 PM

"...I must conclude that the radio program you heard it on must have been an arm of the corporate propaganda machine."

             If there was a radio program that wasn't, would they let it on the air?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 05:32 PM

I'm trying to think of one that isn't, and I can't.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 02:25 AM

Here Carol. try these:

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/kucinich-health-reform-legislation-a-bailout-insurance-companies/

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2838&Itemid=1

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:21 AM

He's saying exactly what several of us have been saying all along right here in this thread, GfS. Which is why we are still trying to ensure that there is at least a strong public option in whatever health care bill passes.

Kucinich is for single payer, not for profit health care, as I am also. But unless the House and Senate pass a bill that gives us that, I'm going to have to settle for the best I can get. A bill with a strong public option will come the closest to allowing me and my husband get access to health care (short of Medicare for all). The compromise being proposed by the Senate is a much bigger giveaway to the insurance companies than the House bill (although the House bill still falls far short of being ideal), because it doesn't help foster competition or break the monopolies of the insurance industry cabal.

But we haven't yet seen what their bill will look like, because they have not released it to the public. My own suspicion is that it is not likely to go anywhere, because it won't get good numbers from the CBO, for the very reason that it relies heavily on subsidies rather than bringing the cost of premiums down through a robust public option. My suspicion is that the reason they won't talk about it is because they know it won't get good numbers from the CBO and they will be using the CBO numbers to show that any bill that passes will absolutely need to include a robust public option if it is going to fall within the criteria set by Obama and also the Congress.

By the way, I heard Kucinich being interviewed by some talking head this evening, and I was surprised to hear him say that he is not against the proposal to expand Medicare to those over 55. But he was careful to emphasize that he thought it would be a good start. He would want Medicare to be expanded eventually to cover everyone. I don't think I share his optimism about Medicare coverage ever expanding beyond people 55 and up. But I respect his position on this. He's earned the right to be an optimist, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:59 AM

Hmmmm...


WASHINGTON – A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.

The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.

As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_senate_loopholehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_senate_loophole

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM

Carol,I think you and I have the same concerns in regards to this bill, versus REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM! That is why, I keep saying, 'Yes we need reform, but this bill is not it!' I think it is both despicable, and underhanded that the Dems are trying to pass a bill this huge, and keep it from the American public as much as they can. So much for the 'transparency' we were 'promised'(?)!!!! Another campaign lie!
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM

And I keep saying there is no "this bill".   No bill has emerged from the Senate as of yet. We will have to wait until the Senate releases their bill to the public to know precisely what is in it. And we have absolutely no idea what kind of bill will emerge from the process of reconciliation with the House.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:11 PM

Have you looked into this one yet, Carol? Currently on the right wing blogs and I haven't thought it through - but the numbers should be easy enough to check. (The guy says if two people each make $30K, they will pay $100 per month each if single, but $500 per month each if they get married.):

Allen Quist, a former Minnesota State legislator and current candidate for Congress, discovered the penalty while looking at numbers from the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor.

"This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360," he wrote in a blog post. "A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger."

The Senate bill includes a similar penalty.

"The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance," Quist wrote. "Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married."

The numbers are based on the government's definition of "poverty level." Those above poverty level will pay higher premiums, and the excess would be redistributed to those in lower income levels.

Quist explains that the government's definitions will play a critical role in whether people will choose to get married.

"'Household' is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes, thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried," he wrote. "The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:37 PM

That's the first I've heard about that one. I'll check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:41 PM

Apparently the source for that one is the Moonie newspaper (Washington Times). I'll keep looking around, though.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:06 PM

I was wrong. The Moonie newspaper was talking about something else. It's Quist himself who is presenting us with this one on his own website. And I think I was also wrong when I said this was the first I'd heard about it. I seem to remember, back when the house was deliberating on its bill, that this issue came up (Quist is talking about the House bill and not the Senate bill). I remember that one of the options they were considering would have screwed JtS and me over in just the way Quist describes it here...

http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/?q=2

But I also remember that they didn't go with that version of the bill. At least I remember that I was much happier with the version that came out than I was with that one. I think I would have to go back and read the posts in this thread that were made during the time when the House was still deliberating its bill to find out for sure, though. I know I remember posting some things about it then.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:45 PM

Fair enough, Carol. I hope this bill either goes through a massive overhaul,(probably from top to bottom), or scrap it, and start again!

Jeez, last time I took a 'wait and see approach, I told Amos, that I'd reserve opinion on Obama...and I've been nice, and kept my word...but frankly, it's not looking real great, at this juncture!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:51 PM

I'm not waiting and seeing, myself. I've been doing a lot of writing and calling to my Senators and my Representative.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:44 PM

Carol, Good for you!!!! We should do that!!
But in the end of the day, do you think your 'representative' will represent you, and his/her constituents, or take a deal, for their vote? That is one of the biggest bummers, which I have written extensively about.
But, keep trying. You are doing an honorable thing, in doing that, and all the more power to you for it!!
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 01:28 AM

There's no way to know whether it will work or not, but I know it won't work at all if we don't make the attempt. It is possible to scare them into to doing the right thing... if enough people make sure they know they won't get re-elected if they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:45 AM

CarolC:"....if enough people make sure they know they won't get re-elected if they don't."

.....Or get re-elected if they do.

Depends on what this thing looks like, and if we can really afford, the REAL numbers....or if it's really a scam.

We'll be watching..REAL close.

Perhaps we can hash it over..be cool to see what would come out of it.
Waiting, ...Holding my baited breath....and turning blue...
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:24 AM

Okay, the Senate just tossed out the "expansion of Medi-Care." Does anybody in the real world know what that means?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:41 AM

I don't think we can know what it means until the House and Senate reconcile their bills and we find out what the final bill will contain.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM

It means that the senator from Aetna, Mr. Lieberman, is showing voters that one senator can keep them from getting what they voted for.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:19 PM

No, it takes 40.

And, as can be seen from CarolC's posts, what they are trying to push through is NOT what the people who voted for Obama wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:52 PM

You can't say "as can be seen from CarolC's posts, what they are trying to push through is NOT what the people who voted for Obama wanted". At least you can't say that and be telling the truth.

What some, of them are trying to do is entirely what the people who voted for Obama wanted. And those others who are trying to prevent this from being done are doing what people who didn't vote for Obama wanted.

The people who voted for Obama overwhelmingly want a public option, or Medicare for all. The people who didn't vote for Obama mostly (but not entirely) don't want either a public option or Medicare for all. What they want is more subsidies for the insurance industry.

Those who want a public option are still in the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:12 PM

Lieberman must go... The Dems should ance with him just long enough to get some ace saving BS health care reform which won't fix squat and then throw the little weisel outta the caucus and strip him of his chairmanship... Screw it... The system is terribly broken when one man can tell 59 others to fuck off and get away with it...

But, all this was predictable... Afterall, this is the best government that money can buy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 11:01 PM

Lieberman knows by now he'll never be re-nominated...much less re-elected... as a Democrat, and probably not electable in Connecticut at all. He has 3 more years to be, as Dick says, the senator from Aetna, and to build up enough blood money so that he can never NEED to work again....even though he will probably have a twilight career AS a lobbyist for big insurance.


It sickens me to see ANY senator so unconcerned about what sickens the rest of the country.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:49 AM

The system is terribly broken when one man ( Reid) can tell 40 others to fuck off and get away with it...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:56 AM

"Lieberman knows by now he'll never be re-nominated...much less re-elected... as a Democrat, and probably not electable in Connecticut at all."

                The fact that he got elected the last time when the Democrats nominated somebody else was amazing to me. Obviously AIPAC thought it was important for him to be there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:01 AM

No, BB, you have not counted correctly... There are 56 Senators for health care reform and 44 against!!! So right now we have minority rule... And if you break down that minority into actual percentage of the population with less populated states still having two senators this is more like 20% ruling the other 80%... That is closer to what is occuring...

The Repubs have thrown more filibusters (and threats of) into the so-called democratic system since 2006 than the Dems had used in over 20 years... This sytem is tyerribly broken and it won't be fixed until... No, there won't be a fix... Tom Jefferson and Co's little experiement is terminally ill and because of Senate rules it cannot even fix its ownself...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:41 AM

In any event, Howard Dean wants it to fail so they just ought to stop right now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM

Right you are, Rigs... Hey, Obama thinks this a bad bill is better than no bill... That's not accurate at all... Bad stuff is just that... That's why they call it bad...

(But, Boberdz... Then the Dems will get voted out because they didn't get health care thru...)

No, not really... If the dems would just vote it down and take their arguments to the people saying that system is broken that requires a super majority in the Senate to pass anything and tell the American people that until that is fixed then nothin' will get fixed I think the voters would reward them for hafving told the friggin' truth./.. Face it... 65 is greater than 44!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:19 PM

We start out wanting health care reform, and after Congress gets through with it, we get health care deform!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:31 PM

Apparently, you're not the only person thinking along those lines about Lieberman, Riginslinger (click).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:43 PM

YYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Dr. Gov. Dean NDC chairman, is at it again. He is calling to vote the bill down.

You don't have to be a fan of the occult to "channel" the late Senator Edward Kennedy but if one could he would surely say,
"Get what you can now, which includes the criminalization of denying help to sick people with pre existing incomes, and get what we want later."




Yes the single payer plan and the Medicare expansion is dead along with the 50,000 people who will die as a result.

Yes the Drug Companies won the fight to charge TEN times more for drugs in the US than the same dryg they export.

The 3 billion or more spent to defeat reform has deformed this attempt but Ted Kennedy would have reason to take this small step forward and build on it later.

So today Rep. Coburn has delayed the process another 11 hours by asking the defeated ammendments to be read slowly aloud. Micheal Steele says this slow down is what the American people want and deserve. We will not have a bill this year.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM

And if it goes into next year, everybody will have to worry about the mid-term elections. Is there a Senate seat coming up in Vermont? Maybe Howard is getting ready to run for something.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:04 PM

"The system is terribly broken when one man ( Reid) can tell 40 others to fuck off and get away with it... "

Gee... don't I remember when The Shrub was in charge and needed to pass stuff, that his majority leader, Bill Frist, aided by Trent Lott and Ted Stevens and others, threatened "the nuclear option" to stop Democrats from filibustering heavily conservative Supreme Court nominees?

The Republicans were not a bit shy about 'telling ...others... to fuck off' when they had an agenda.

A **majority** of the Senate & House, and a **majority** of Americans want Health Care REFORM...with a public option. A majority of large insurance companies do not...and most Republican senators, and a few Democrats, got a huge portion of their campaign funds from health care interests.

Guess what's driving the voting lineup? "voting their conscience"? HA!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:18 PM

I'm with you, Bill...

In a way, the Dems deserve to lose and lose big because they are losers...

I'd tell Joe Leiberman to get outta the caucus... I'd let the other 3 know that they can go, as well... And I'd not only threaten the "nuclear option" but I'd be willing to use it...

Anything short will be a most certain defeat in both '10 and '12 elections...

Whimps!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:56 PM

What is the nuclear option in this context?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:12 PM

"The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. "

In this context, it refers to the Republicans willingness to use any means to get their way. The Democrats wanted to stop bad judicial appointments: the Republicans wished to keep them from it. Now, the Republicans don't want the Democrats to try similar tactics.

"What's sauce for the goose...."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:30 PM

Yeah, there is no mention in the Constitution that it requires 60 votes to bring a bill to a vote... Might of fact, I think that the Founding Fathers would have been very much against such a rule...

This rule has, in essence, turned the Senate into the "No Chamber" of Congress and is responsible for most of the distatste that the voters have for Congress...

It is a bad rule... Bad for Congress... Bad for the Country... And bad for our citizens... It does nothin' but promote bickerin' at the expense of solutions...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:15 PM

But why was it possible for the Republicans to use the nuclear option, but the Democrats aren't able to use it? Was it because the Republicans had the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster and the Democrats don't without people like Lieberman?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:32 PM

Partly because the Democrats don't have 60 SOLID votes...partly because Obama and Harry Reid have tried every way possible to avoid such things as a matter or principle, I guess. Several pundits have asked "why?" and gotten vague answers. The topic of 'reconciliation' has popped up seriously the last day or two, but there are serious flaws in what can be done in that mode.

Now...having said that, I heard Howard Dean say this evening that reconciliation HAS been used 23 times in the last decade...mostly by Republicans to get big tax cuts...and Dean thinks it could be used carefully to solve most of the problems. (I am still not sure of the details of his suggestion.....sitting right now with a teeny TV and with headphones on, listening to all the MSNBC programs in hopes of hearing some more analysis.)

I think reconciliation has a bad reputation as a sneaky trick, and Obama & Reid don't want to resort to it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:13 PM

Sneaky trick or not it is no sneakier than allowing the minority to run the show...

Time for Obama and the Dems to put up or shut up... They have negoitiated away all the goodness in the bill with people who were not going to vote for it under any circumstance... That is insane... Why negotiate at all...

Reconciliation or killing the current insurance friendly bill are the Dems only options if they don't want to be soundly voted back into the loser/minority party that seems to be where their comfort zone lies...

This is a very, very bad bill...

Bad Dems, bad...

And bad Obama, bad...

This is their doing... They got voted in to govern and they are afraid to do it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:58 PM

Personally, I've been suckered into paying into Medicare since its inception, now I'm almost old enough to use it, and the Democrats want to savage Medicare in order to provide health care to a bunch of illegal immigrants. I have a problem with the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:31 PM

47 experts have said, Riggo, that that is NOT what the Democrats are doing. That is a stupid distortion of what is in the bill. You "have a problem" with the very idea of seeing the Democrats actually get anything done.

*I* am old enough to use it, and I am damn glad I have it,,,even though it costs me more than it should.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:33 AM

"A **majority** of the Senate & House, and a **majority** of Americans want Health Care REFORM...with a public option."

"A **majority** of the Senate & House," --- PROBABLY true.

"a **majority** of Americans" ---NOT TRUE, from the present polls.



"want Health Care REFORM...with a public option." -- A pity that the bills being considered DO NOT provice the desired reform.

So the entire debate is a straw man arguement, since the bills do not provide the reform in a meaningful way that the PUBLIC supports.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:49 AM

Which polls Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:03 AM

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:27 AM

The polls are dropping, JtS, becuase the American people are just downright disgusted are the partisanship and it's 90% from the Repubs and the Dems are are too whimpy to go to the American people and lay the blame where it belongs... Instead, they allow The Big Lies to take hold and then The Big Lies become the new reality... Hitler said that people will readiallully believe The Big Lie. Here are just a few Big Lies that have settled nicely into the minds (or lack thereof) of the folks who are being polled:

1. Partisanship is something that both parties are equally quilty ot playing...

2. The Goevernemnt wants to kill you garndma...

3. The Governemnt wants to take over health care...

4. Obama is a socialist...

5. Obama wants to raise *your* taxes...

6. If the health care reform bill is passed the unemployement will go up...

7. etc., etc. etc...

These are all blatent Big Ass Lies but see, the Dems have not been willing to counter them with the force that these Big Ass Lies are being told and so the Big Ass Lies have settled in and one thing about human nature is that once someone has been brainwashed into ***believing*** (not thinking) something then it is very hard to get them to ever again ***Believe*** anything else...

This is why the Dems are screwed... The health insurance lobby has won the minds (or laack thereof) of enough people that "new and improved" Big Ass Lies are now much easier to layer on top of the old ones...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:56 AM

"1. Partisanship is something that both parties are equally quilty ot playing..."

No, the Democrats are demonstrating that they are far more guilty, since they are in power. When the Repubs were in power, THEN they were partisan.



"2. The Goevernemnt wants to kill you garndma..."

No, it just does not care to save lives over being cost effective.



"3. The Governemnt wants to take over health care..."

No, they do not WANT to, but the bills being considered attempt to do so.




"4. Obama is a socialist..."

No, he just supports a number of policies that are closer to socialist than to capitalist.



"5. Obama wants to raise *your* taxes..."

True- He states that they will not be raised, yet the proposals he has supported will do so, regardless of what he says.




"6. If the health care reform bill is passed the unemployement will go up..."

Definitely false- If the present bills are passed, the government will grow by far more than the jobs lost in private industry.





So, I agree that Bobert is right that 5 of his 6 "lies" are not true as stated.

72% technically correct is pretty good- the best he has done so far.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 09:08 AM

"...47 experts have said, Riggo, that that is NOT what the Democrats are doing. That is a stupid distortion of what is in the bill."

               What is in the bill are massive cuts to Medicare. It would be a stupid distortion to think that is not going to result in a lower quality of care to Medicare users.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 10:12 AM

Beardedbruce, according to the polls you just posted, the majority of people do want the public option. In most of them, it's a fairly large majority. Your own evidence proves you wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 10:27 AM

CarolC,

The majority DOES NOT WANT the present Democratic ( since they refused to consider ANY Republican amendments, they get ALL the blame) "Reform" that require YOU to spend more and get less health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 10:32 AM

What the majority wants, according to the polls you posted yourself, is a public option. That is not included in the current Senate proposals, and that is probably why the majority is against what is being proposed right now in the Senate.

Your own evidence has proved you wrong about the public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:14 AM

And I should add that it is definitely the Republicans' fault that there is no public option in the current Senate proposal.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:18 AM

And I should REITERATE that it is definitely the Democrats fault for WHATEVER in the current Senate proposal.



The Dems CONTROL the Senate- they refused to consider the Rep. amendments, and PROHIBITED the Republicans from the meetings.

Reid wrote this bill, NOT BUSH!!!!



YOU CAN'T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS for what the Democrats have done.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:45 AM

The majority of people want the public option, and while a very small number of Democrats have been working against the public option, the vast majority of Democrats have been working to include a public option, while ALL of the Republicans have been working against the public option. So it is very much the fault of the Republicans that the Senate proposals do not include what the majority of people want, which is the public option, and therefore it is the fault of the Republicans that the majority of people don't support what the Senate is currently proposing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:49 AM

"So it is very much the fault of the Republicans that the Senate proposals do not include what the majority of people want, which is the public option, and therefore it is the fault of the Republicans that the majority of people don't support what the Senate is currently proposing. "


No, you are wrong. Since the Dems have NOT worked with the Reps. , the Dems get the total credit/blame for THIS set of bills.


The Republicans HAVE NOT HAD INPUT as to what is in the bill. Your blaming them is pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM

That is incorrect. The Republicans have stated their unanimous opposition to any kind of public option. They have stated their intention to do everything they can to prevent any kind of public option being a part of any kind of health care reform bill. The Republicans are unanimous in their opposition to a public option. It doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion whether or not they have been able to put forward any proposals of their own, since none of them would include a public option, and it is the public option that we are talking about here.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM

...and I should have added, if the Democrats knew they could count on even just a small handful of Republicans to support the public option, it would definitely be in whatever bill they put forward. It's only because of not having enough votes to pass a bill with a public option that none is currently in the bill they are working on.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:57 AM

"The Republicans have stated their unanimous opposition to any kind of public option. They have stated their intention to do everything they can to prevent any kind of public option being a part of any kind of health care reform bill. The Republicans are unanimous in their opposition to a public option. "

So what???

THEY do not have the power to stop the Dems- SO IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT IF THE DEM BILL is a piece of crap!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:00 PM

They totally have the power to stop the Democrats from passing a bill with a public option. And that is precisely what they are doing. As I said before, if even just a small handful of Republicans would vote for a bill with a public option, we would have one right now. The majority of Democrats would vote for a bill with a public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:12 PM

"They totally have the power to stop the Democrats from passing a bill with a public option."


HOW????

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM

"YOU CAN'T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS for what the Democrats have done."
"THEY do not have the power to stop the Dems- SO IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT IF THE DEM BILL is a piece of crap!!!!"

Now THAT is the piece of crap!

The bill, as written, is chock-full of Republican & conservative Democrat 'input', in the form of concessions, in order to get ANYTHING.

If the bill is passed in this form, it will be a huge victory for Insurance Company lobbying, and they will end up making even MORE dirty dollars thru higher costs.

("So, Bill...if they will be better off, why fight it and vote against it?"
Why, because they don't want even a precedent of Democrats being ABLE to pass a bill! They want to paint the Obama administration as 'unable to come up with anything' and hope to win power back! They are quite happy with the status quo, which has very little government control, whereas the new law, if it were passed, would be a toe-hold and could be used to add more controls later.

The idea that Republican do not have the power to stop anything is sheer nonsense in a 60 vote situation!

Now.... I absolutely HOPE that the Democrats will say, "Ok,,, we tried to do something meaningful within standard procedures, and you harpooned every attempt....now we use reconciliation, and ...you reap what you sow"!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:34 PM

By voting against it! Duh!


The House, which has a larger Democratic majority already has a bill with a public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:35 PM

...and by vote against it, I am including voting against cloture in the event of a filibuster.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:45 PM

Not only have the Repubs said they don't want a publioc option but once the Dems gave on it then the Repubs didn't want this and didn't want that... Bottom line, is the the Repubs justr want those bigass checks from the health insurance lobby coming in... That is the reality... Same with Lieberman...

As for the partisanship, bb, go back and check out the votes on Bush's bigass tax cuts to the wealthy and Bush's stupid war in Iraq and you'll find Dems who voted for them... That is called bipartisanship... No, look at the number of fillibitsres and threats of fillabusters that the Repubs have used since getting their butts busted in '06... Look at the number of judges that Clinton couldn't get an up-and-down gvote on because of obstruction of the Repubs... These are all benchmarks of who is doing the nastiest partisan politics and the Repubs make the Dems look like chior boys when it comes to measurable benchmarks of partisanship...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:46 PM

CarolC

Let me 'slain.

the Reps have 40 vote. 100 - 40 is 60.

60 is enough to push it through.

Duh!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:51 PM

Bobert,

Look at the number of positions that Bush couldn't get an up-and-down vote on because of obstruction of the Democrats.

Or do you claim it it OK for the Democrats to do what you criticize Republicans for?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:08 PM

Beardedbruce, there are only 58 Democrats in the Senate. Not 60.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:10 PM

The independents caucus with the Democrats, NOT the Republicans.


HOW CAN 40 (of 100) stop the majority of 60 from passing WHATEVER they want??????????

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:13 PM

Correction: there are only 48 Democrats in the Senate.

It doesn't matter who the Independents caucus with. They are not Democrats. And one of them, Lieberman, is threatening to filibuster any bill that contains a public option. Lieberman is not a Democrat, so you can't blame the Democrats for his stupidity.

If ALL of the Republicans would support a filibuster by Lieberman (and they do), then the Republicans are perfectly able to kill the public option against the wishes of the majority of Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM

"Correction: there are only 48 Democrats in the Senate"


Huh?? Then Reid has no authority, and the bills are invalid.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:46 PM

BB: How does it feel to argue with a solid brick wall?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:27 PM

My mistake. I was looking at the wrong part of the chart. That part gave the number of Democrats in the last session. The current number is 58.

My point still stands, DougR. All of the Republicans are voting against allowing the public option to come to a vote. One Independent is threatening to filibuster. The majority of Democrats support including a public option in the Senate bill. The Republicans are more responsible than the Democrats for there not being a public option in the Senate bill by virtue of the fact that more of them are voting against it than the Democrats.

Beardedbruce is the brick wall in this particular scenario because he is trying to say that the majority of Democrats are to blame for what all of the Republicans, one Independent, and a very small number of Democrats are doing. That kind of math is like trying to say that all men are responsible for the actions of those men who abuse their wives.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM

Carol C: you have your interpretation and BB and I have ours. It appears to me that the public option is not included primarily because not enough Democrats and one Independent (who caucuses with the Democrats) did not want it included.

The Republicans are opposed to the whole Bill, not just the public option. One of them, a senator who use to be a medical doctor, stated pretty clearly in a Wall Street Journal "Op Ed" piece today why they oppose it. I agree with him.

At this point, Obama doesn't give a damn whether or not the public option is included or not. He just wants a Bill to sign so that he can say health care was changed (read destroyed IMO) on his watch. For some reason he and the Democratic leadership believe passage of "something" will ensure Democrat continued domination in the House and the senate in 2010. I think if they pass it the majority in both houses will be captured by the Republicans in 2010. The first to go will be Harry Reid.

I don't know what polls you have been watching, but the major polls show that the majority of Americans DO NOT want the Bill currently being pushed by the Democrats to become law and Obama's approval rating is lower than any other president to serve at this point in their first term.

As you have pointed out numerous times, there is NO Bill at the present time but the Bill Harry Reid and his cohorts wrote behind closed doors is opposed by about 47% of those polled.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:52 PM

I repeat:

"The idea that Republican do not have the power to stop anything is sheer nonsense in a 60 vote situation!"
It is doubtful that ANY semi-controversial bill would get 60 votes, given several Democrats like Ben Nelson and Mary Landreau and with Joe "I'll vote against ANYTHING Anthony Weiner likes" Lieberman in the caucus.

You ought to know from a science background the difference between a theoretical possibility and practicality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
and Doug...

"the majority of Americans DO NOT want the Bill currently being pushed by the Democrats to become law "

Why, you sure are right there, Doug! My... but a large majority DID want something like the version of the bill they started with!..before the $$$$ of the health care industry and conservative stonewalling watered it down!

It is the height of mental Gerrymandering to assert that this bill is what Democrats in general WANT.

It is sad that the current crop of Republicans put political aims ahead of actually DOING something to make health care fair & affordable for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:10 PM

I imagine this is a typo, because it makes no sense...

It appears to me that the public option is not included primarily because not enough Democrats and one Independent (who caucuses with the Democrats) did not want it included.


Beardedbruce is blaming "the Democrats" for the fact that the Senate bill does not contain a public option, but he places no responsibility on the vast majority of those who oppose it, the overwhelming majority of whom are Republicans. You can't blame the party that is mostly supporting the public option and not acknowledge the responsibility of the party that is entirely opposing it. At least you can't be honest and do that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:38 PM

(Keep your heart pills handy, Doug!)

". . . the major polls show that the majority of Americans DO NOT want the Bill currently being pushed by the Democrats to become law. . . ."

I'm afraid Doug has a point. The cobbling of the health care bill has reached that classic point where it can be said that Obama requested that Congress provide a horse, and once Congress got through with it, it's a six-legged camel with a head on each end.

But most Republicans and certainly some Democrats are in the pocket of the health insurance industry. That's why it's the mess that it is. They want it to be unacceptable to the voters.

If I had my druthers (which of course, I don't), I would say, "Scrap this abortion, go back to the drawing board, and draw up a lean-and-mean bill that will provide quality life-long health care for all American citizens, regardless of economic status or previous health history, disregarding any input from the insurance companies."

Health care does not mean health insurance. In fact, the health insurance companies, whose primary interest is profit, are actually inimical to quality health care.

This is undoubtedly not Doug's view of the matter, but the fact that the bill as it currently stands is a labyrinth of blind alleys and contradictions, the best thing to do would be to dump it in the waste basket and go back to the drawing board and draw up a lean-and-mean bill that will accomplish what the citizens want.

But, of course, partisan politics will gut any new attempt, just as it did this one. And will continue to do so ad nauseum.

With the present "buyable Congress" political system, I doubt very seriously that this country will have a decent, affordable, quality health care system like most other civilized countries any time in the foreseeable future.

PTUI!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:32 PM

Actually there are 56 Democrats, 2 independents, two wolves in sheep clothing and 40 Repubs...

The political reality is that most folks run with whatever party they have to to be elected... Here in Page County one must say they are Republican to get elected... I have a friend, Alan Cubbage, who is a former board of supervisor member who told me when I came here: "I ran as a Demnocrat and I lost. I ran as an Indpendent and I lost. Then I ran as a Republican and I won."

There are many jurisdictions just like Page County, Va. where folks pick a party based on wanting to win and not philosphy...

That is why the Dems can't get a decent health care reform bill passed... They need more real Dems and with the current stupid rules you have to have a ***solid*** philosophical majority to get anything truelu progressive thru the Senate and that is almost an impossibility...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:56 PM

Now, there ya go again, Carol, using "Doug" and "Honest" in the same sentance...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:21 PM

They're bitching about abortion again!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:57 PM

Some folks say that we need a base...a start....even a flawed one which can be expanded later....to build on, and that this bill has 'some' good things in it and will help 'some' people.

However, the former insurance executive whistle blower, Wendell Potter who is speaking out these days says that IF there is a bill, this one is exactly what the insurance industry wants....that there are enough loopholes in it to run a train thru; that they will be able to charge what they wish, cut off many people who don't meet their criteria, take a larger % of premiums as profit, and generally do as they wish (under the guise of 'just following what the new law says).

Is that what we want? I wish I knew who was right.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:08 PM

Howard Dean and Wendell Potter are right, Bill...

Obama and Harry Reid are wrong... This bill will only insure that the Democratic party's rise to power will be short lived... No, it's better for Obama to go to the American people and tell them that 40 Repubs and 4 of his own Dems derailed progress but that he is going out next year and campaign for folks who will come into Congress and get it right for the American people... That is what he needs to do both from the standpoint of pure politics but also from the standpoint of getting real reform... That won't hurt the Dems or Obama as much as passing this bill and having the Repubs use little bits and pieces of it to campaign against the Dems... Plus, not having it go into effect until after 2012 is falt out dumb from all aspects...

That's what the Dems and Obama should do along with escorting Leiberman to the door... They have nothin' at all to lose here and all to gain... This scenerio is probably the Repubs worst nightmare... Yeah, the Dems going into the '10 election on the heals of the Repubs refusing to step forward to help the American people and the American economy ain't gonna help the Repubs on bit...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 10:05 PM

"Howard Dean and Wendell Potter are right, Bill"

Now, even Bernie Sanders is saying he would hate to not pass 'some' bill....sheesh...

Some are now saying..."pass the durned thing, and let's see what the House/Senate conference committee can do to put some decent stuff back in. ..... golly

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:28 PM

I just read that it would be possible to pass the bill as it is now, and add the public option through reconciliation later on. They would have to plan for it in the budget at the beginning of the year, though. If they do that much, and if they make sure people know about it, the Democrats stand a chance of not losing their majority in 2010. If they don't do that, they're in big trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 12:09 AM

Bill D.: I don't see how you can possibly say some things in the current Senate Bill are good. It's my understanding that only a hand full of Democrats KNOW what's in the Bill. No one else does.

I see no reason why the Democrats MUST pass this Bill before the end of the year. I think they should scrap this one and start over with a much leaner Bill that would cover people who don't have health coverage, require private insurance companies to cover those with health conditions that prevent them from being covered now, allow people to buy health insurance across state lines (which would provide the competition most people appear to agree would be good)...try to come up with a bi-partisan bill that would not be so costly.

All major social legislation (civil rights, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)were passed with the support of both major parties. It could be done with health care too.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 02:03 AM

In order to come up with a bill that will be less costly, they will have to include the public option. That goes the farthest in bringing down costs.

However, the Senate bill does include some things that are very important, including some that you have named, Doug. Unfortunately, while it does require insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, it allows them to charge far higher premiums for such people. That won't change anything for most people with pre-existing conditions. We will still be unable to get insurance because we won't be able to afford it. And we still need to eliminate the anti-trust exemption that the insurance industry enjoys.

If they pass the House bill or if they pass the Senate bill and then add on a public option later through reconciliation, that would be a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 07:12 AM

If they pass the Senate bill and add a public option through reconcilliation we will definately see a Republican majority in Congress in 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:37 AM

On the contrary. That would rescue the Democrats in 2010, as long as they do it well before the election. The majority of voters want the public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:10 PM

BillD,

"health care fair & affordable for everyone. "

NOT what this or any other prposed bill by the Democrats would do.


It is a shame that the Dems are against giving a billion dollars to each voter.- Same logic- since NOTHING has been proposed that does what you claim is the goal, HOW CAN YOU BLAME the Republicans for NOT voting for it?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:12 PM

Don Firth,

"but the fact that the bill as it currently stands is a labyrinth of blind alleys and contradictions, the best thing to do would be to dump it in the waste basket and go back to the drawing board and draw up a lean-and-mean bill that will accomplish what the citizens want."

I agree entirely. The problem is to determine "what the citizens want"- I am not so sure EITHER party has any idea.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

CarolC,

"In order to come up with a bill that will be less costly, they will have to include the public option. That goes the farthest in bringing down costs."

LESS means less than the present bill- thus they do NT have to include any particular thing, just cut the vast increases in spending.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:23 PM

The public option lowers costs more than any other measure they could adopt other than single payer not for profit.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM

So you reject any solution that does not save "THE MOST"?

Yet you seem to want this bill.


The solution that gives each of us a billion dollars and free food and medical care is the best- since you think it is all free when the government spends money.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 02:00 PM

Doug...(if you are still following this)..Where did *I* claim that *I* find "good things in this bill"? I said that SOME folks say so. I suppose that if one woman in Walla Walla gets some help, that would be 'good'....but you and other conservatives are nitpicking at stuff taken out of context and ignoring the major points.
   
"·..try to come up with a bi-partisan bill that would not be so costly."
Doug...you still do not get it! Many Republicans are on record as saying that the point is to **NOT** pass any bill under a Democratic administration! Read what Jim DeMint has said...or Eric Cantor! This is no longer about health care for them....it is about Obama failing!
   The Republicans intend to make any GOOD bill impossible to pass, and to point at any BAD bill that does pass and say "Look at this ineffectual thing".
bearded bruce is already deep into the formula of asserting that the Democrats are offering us a bad bill and pretending not to hear how it is the **Republicans** and a few conservative Democrats who have watered it down using vague promises and legislative tricks...then backing out of any form of support.
Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman will NEVER find any language they can agree to! They could be invited to write the language themselves, and would then vote against their own amendments!

What I can't figure out is whether you, Doug, and BB, are just confused, or are lying to and convincing yourselves before you come in here and post distorted and false versions of the truth!

(You say I'm testy? Yup...shore am!)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 02:04 PM

I've just said that the public option saves "the most" with the exception of single payer not for profit. I do not reject either of these.

The US pays twice as much for health care per capita than any other developed country in the world, and we get less care for that money. The other countries use either single payer not for profit, or they have strictly regulated insurance industries whose prices are dictated to them by the government.

We could definitely lower costs by strictly regulating the insurance industries, but I haven't seen any Republicans propose that alternative. Short of that, there is no way to bring the costs of health care down other than single payer not for profit, or a public option that will increase competition.

Those of us who advocate for either the public option or single payer not for profit know full well that they are not free. But we're not as stupid as the people who want to continue subsidizing the insurance industry as the Republicans want us to do. We know that we will get far more value for our money if the insurance companies aren't allowed to call all of the shots.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 03:00 PM

BillD,

And how do WE know whgether you are "are just confused,or are lying to and convincing yourselves before you come in here and post distorted and false versions of the truth!

After all, YOU are now disagreeing with US. That seems to be sufficient, when WE point out that the DEMOCRATS could pass it WITHOUT the Republicans, yet it remains the Republican's fault that this ( bad ) bill is the BEST that the DEMOCRATS can come up with, holding contol of both houses and the Presidency, and keeping the Republicans out of the loop.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 04:58 PM

What the citizens want, BB, is the public option, and they will not be satisfied with any bill that does not contain it. That is abundantly clear to anyone who is paying attention. Whichever political party does the most to stand in the way of it will be hung out to twist in the wind in the next Congressional election.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:26 PM

Let me just pick off 1200 fir now...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:49 PM

"And how do WE know..." etc..

because,as I said, many Republicans are on record (and on video) saying the things I mention. There IS no doubt...and cleverer folks than I are making the point every day.

"...when WE point out that the DEMOCRATS could pass it WITHOUT the Republicans"

and you STILL ignore what I said above. 60 is no magic number when Nelson & Lieberman are part of that count. I could point out some 'theoretical' possibilities involving satellite tracking or astronomy observations that you could no doubt explain the practical silliness of.
Republicans (read:'conservatives'), even as a minority STILL have legislative tricks and more importantly, propaganda & advertising
scare tactics (read: lying) to influence matters.

Joseph McCarthy was just ahead of his time.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:13 PM

"60 is no magic number when Nelson & Lieberman are part of that count."

They caucus with the Dems- AND ARE NOT REPUBLICANS.



BTW, name one person accused by Joseph McCarthy who was NOT found to be a Soviet spy, once the Soviet data was released.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:54 PM

""BTW, name one person accused by Joseph McCarthy who was NOT found to be a Soviet spy, once the Soviet data was released.""


CHARLIE CHAPLIN?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 07:16 PM

Show me where Senator McCarthy accused him.

I think that was the House Committee- McCarthy was a Senator.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 09:59 PM

A short list of some of the better known people whom Senator McCarthy accused:

(I specifically remember his accusing Chaplin, because I was in my early twenties at the time. McCarthy was the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and, as I understand it, the House Un-American Activities Committee was under the Permanent Subcommittee on Investicatons. McCarthy took special interest in HUAC).

Nelson Algren, writer[
Elmer Bernstein, composer and conductor
Leonard Bernstein, composer and conductor
Charlie Chaplin, actor and director
Aaron Copland, composer
Bartley Crum, attorney
Jules Dassin, director
Dolores del Río, actress
W. E. B. Du Bois, civil rights activist and author
Howard Fast, writer
John Garfield, actor
Lee Grant, actress
Dashiell Hammett, author
Elizabeth Hawes, clothing designer, author, equal rights activist
Lillian Hellman, playwright
Langston Hughes, writer
Sam Jaffe, actor
Garson Kanin, writer and director
Gypsy Rose Lee, actress and ecdysiast (translation: stripper)
Philip Loeb, actor
Joseph Losey, director
Burgess Meredith, actor
Arthur Miller, playwright and essayist
Zero Mostel, actor
J. Robert Oppenheimer, physicist, "father of the atomic bomb"
Dorothy Parker, writer
Linus Pauling, chemist, winner of two Nobel prizes
Martin Ritt, actor and director
Paul Robeson, actor, athlete, singer, writer, political and civil rights activist
Edward G. Robinson, actor
Waldo Salt, screenwriter
Pete Seeger, folk singer
Artie Shaw, jazz musician
William L. Shirer, journalist
Paul Sweezy, economist and founder-editor of Monthly Review
Tsien Hsue-shen, physicist
Orson Welles, actor, writer, and director

This is not an exhaustive list by any means. McCarthy even voiced suspicions about the loyalty of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Five-Star General [ret.])

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 10:11 PM

Well, President Eisenhower did warn the American public about the Industrial-Military-Complex. Who was bankrolling Joseph McCarthy?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 10:26 PM

Thanks, Don... that was a few more than one... but *grin*

Bruce! "They caucus with the Dems- AND ARE NOT REPUBLICANS."

Yes... and "The EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN"

I despair when you persist in shouting some technical, irrelevant 'fact' as if you'll win something if you keep proclaiming it.

Nelson and Lieberman, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR OFFICIAL DESIGNATION, are part of the 60 needed. Nelson has been more a Republican than a Democrat for years! Some suspect that he ran as a Democrat in order to observe and derail Democratic plans from within. Nebraska has only voted Democratic once in 50-60 years, and Nelson was not only a classic **conservative**, he was also and insurance executive! Some credentials for pretending to honestly help regulate health care....


Lieberman? The senator from Aetna? He is now beyond slimy and heading for despicable...

At least Senator Arlen Specter had the decency to officially change parties when he found the one he was in no longer suited him.

Please...do not shout any more trivial 'facts' at me as if I can't read and do simple math.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Suffet
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:13 PM

THE DEMOCRATS' FLAG
Tune: The Workers' Flag (O Tannenbaum)
New words (in part) by Steve Suffet

The Democrats' flag is purest white,
It means they don't intend to fight.
Who cares what the people say?
Insurance companies pay their way.

They raise their snowy banner high,
And let their health care program die.
Republicans can't stop their bill,
But Democrats in the Senate will.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:24 PM

*tsk*, Steve... that's painting with a pretty broad brush... 40-50 of them have tried everything short of physical threats to get something decent.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 12:07 AM

Uh, are we veering a bit off subject?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:02 AM

The majority of Democrats are trying to get a public option included in the Senate health care bill. All of the Republicans are trying to prevent a public option from being included in the Senate health care bill, and yet, the Democrats are being blamed for there not being a public option in the bill.

Obviously, "the Democrats" can't get a public option included in the bill without Republican help. If they could, they would have already done it. Since most of the Democrats support the public option, and none of the Republicans do, as I said before, the Republicans are far more responsible for the lack of a public option in the Senate bill than the Democrats.

Whenever a Republican bill fails in Congress due to lack of support from the Democrats, the Republicans don't blame themselves for its failure. They always blame the Democrats, saying that the failure was due to partisan voting on the part of the Democrats. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Suffet
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 08:49 AM

The Democratic Caucus in the Senate has 60 members, including two elected as independents. That's enough to break any filibuster and ram through any bill they can come to an agreement upon.

We already know where the Republicans stand, and they will do anything possible to thwart both the Democrat in the White House and their own Democratic colleagues on the Hill. Playing nice with them all summer while they sent their thugs to break up Democrats' town hall meetings was a first class mistake. Meanwhile, the Attorney-General sat on his hands instead of convening a Federal grand jury to bring some indictments under the Patriot Act or under the so-called "Rap Brown Law" that makes inciting a riot a Federal crime.

So the Democrats, and the Democrats alone, are to blame for this fiasco. The American public gave them the mandate a year ago and they blew it with their own weak-kneed leadership. My song tells it like it is.

--- Steve

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 09:15 AM

But it's not enough if one of the Independents and a small handful of the Democrats don't vote for cloture. You can't blame all of the Democrats for what a very small number of them are doing. As I said before, that would be like blaming you for all of the men who beat their wives. It just doesn't work that way.

But you can blame all of the Republicans for what all of the Republicans are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 09:37 AM

But now it's that guy who looks like Deputey Dog--what's his name--Nelson who's stopping the bill from moving forward, and he is a full fledged Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 09:45 AM

Yes, but he's only ONE Democrat. The majority of Democrats still support the public option, while ALL Republicans want to kill it.

Let me run those numbers by you once again... if you can blame all of the Democrats for what a very small handful of them are doing, then I can blame you for all of the rapes that are committed by men.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Suffet
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM

Carol is right that we cannot blame all the Democrats the same way we can blame all the Republicans. But we can blame the Democratic Party as a party for its lack of effective leadership, for its failure to get its ducks in a row, and for its complete mishandling of this issue. The voters gave them a mandate and they blew it.

Now, thanks to the Democratic Party, we risk having a health care bill that's less than zero, one which hands the private insurance companies 40 million new customers to gouge without any competition, without any price controls, and with little or no regulation.

But what about this should surprise anyone? The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. They are both the parties of capitalism, and despite their non-ending dog and pony show, they serve exactly the same class interests. When push came to shove in the fall of 2008, it was a bipartisan lovefest as they voted together to use our money to bail out the very corporations that got us into the mess.

--- Steve

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 12:24 PM

"...he is a full fledged Democrat."

HA!... Nelson? A wolf in sheep's clothing is more like it.

You guys are just proving my point....and the POINT is to strew the sea with mines , then accuse the Democrats of not sailing the ship carefully.

I see the mantra of "gee, you have 60 in your caucus, why can't you DO something?" is alive & well, no matter how idiotic that slogan is in these circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 12:28 PM

Yes, and we can blame Obama for not pushing harder on what he claims is his top priority.

It's clear that the job of Congress has become to maintain the illusion of democracy by going through the motions, posturing and speechifying, while getting nothing done that would threaten the status quo.

There is no such thing as democracy in the USA. Corporate greed runs the whole show. Some people still refuse to see it, despite all the available evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Suffet
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM

"There is no such thing as democracy in the USA. Corporate greed runs the whole show. Some people still refuse to see it, despite all the available evidence."

What we have in the USA, and in the Western world in general, is capitalist democracy. Corporate greed runs the whole show worldwide, because capitalism is an economic system of organized global greed. And the Democratic Party, as a group, is simply a part of it. But I don't see any alternative. The Socialist and Social Democratic parties of the West have long ago given up on socialism. The Marxist-Leninist parties, when and where they have wielded power, have combined the worst elements of all systems, first creating brutal dictatorships and then adopting a grotesque form of state capitalism. And the anarchists are lost in a primitivist fantasy of a decentralized world run by direct democracy, neighborhood councils, organic food coops, and everyone being nice to everyone else. No wonder the only serious opposition to capitalist imperialism comes from the reactionary Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalism have spent the past 161 years isolating, intimidating, decimating, marginalizing, and sometimes co-opting the Left -- and they have succeeded.

--- Steve

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:13 PM

I don't disagree that the Democratic leadership has failed in this case. But I just think it's a very big mistake to only blame the Democrats and let the Republicans completely off the hook, which is what a lot of people (mostly Republicans) are trying to do. It's more the fault of the Republicans than the Democrats, but the Democratic leadership could certainly have done a better job.

I'm not defending the Democrats because I have any particular love for them generally (although I am a big supporter of one Democrat - Kucinich), but we can't let the Republicans succeed in making the Democrats look like they're worse on the issue of health care reform than the Republicans, because they're not.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

I agree with michaelr... Obama gets much of the blame here... If he doesn't roll up his sleeves and do some of the heavy liftin' he ain't gonna get anything important thru this Congress...

Plus, the Dem really need to explore the "nuclear option"... I think it's time for the Senate to become something other than the place where solutions go to die...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM

BTW, what we have is a kleptocratic corporatist democracy. Which is a pretty corrupt form of democracy, which really is not so much of a democracy in the final analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 04:10 PM

I'm listening to Obama describe the bills before the House and Senate, and they both sound promising. There are controls on insurance companies that could be a big help for me and JtS. If they succeed in doing what Obama has described, it won't be as good as single payer not for profit, but it will definitely be a big improvement. Looks like Nelson's going to vote for cloture.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34491149#34490903

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 04:21 PM

GREAT!!! Let's all get behind this bill, and route for the passage, of this thing....that nobody knows whats in it, or how much it will really cost.....Yay, go for it...(pump pump)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 05:12 PM

That's not true. A lot of people know what's in it and how much it's going to cost.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:32 PM

They only know how much it's going to cost if they trash Medicare to make it happen. If they don't trash Medicare it will cost a whole lot more.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:48 PM

Ya' know, anyone who doesn't know what is in these bills by now just ain't payin' attention... There are alot of good things but there are some very, very bad things like requiring everyone to buy health insurance from private comapnies... That scares the heck out of me... If it were public it would only half scare the heck out of me...

But for folk to say they are clueless only is an admission that they haven't been paying much attention... Or listenin' way to much to Mitch McConnell...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:50 PM

They're not going to trash Medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 08:26 PM

Bobert:". There are alot of good things but there are some very, very bad things like requiring everyone to buy health insurance from private comapnies... That scares the heck out of me... If it were public it would only half scare the heck out of me........"

NO WONDER THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE LOBBYING FOR IT!!..JEEZ!...MAKE PEOPLE HAVE TO GET INSURANCE....CHOOSE BETWEEN SHITTY GOVERNMENT INSURANCE, OR BUY REAL HEALTH CARE, AT INFLATED PRICES!!!!

Thanks, Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 10:29 PM

They are about to pass it

It must still have something good in it, Mitch McConnell is livid.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 02:14 AM

No, the insurance companies will not be allowed to jack up their prices under the Senate bill (after the bill is passed), and they will have to pay a penalty if they jack them up before the bill is passed. That's one of the things I like about the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Suffet
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:00 AM

Carol is right that some good provisions remain in the Senate version of the health care bill. But the bottom line is that the private insurance companies are being handed 40 million new clients with only a minimum of regulation and with no competition. That is exactly what they wanted from the beginning. We knew that at least 38 of the Republicans in the Senate would roll over for them, and now it's certain that all 40 will. So it was up to the 60 members of the Democratic Caucus alone to honor the mandate the American people gave them in 2008. Instead they squandered it. Whether the bill passes or not, the American people are by and large screwed big time.

--- Steve

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:12 AM

GfS and Steve,

Yeah, that is my biggest problem with the Senate version and why, like Howard Dean, I am opposed to it... If you are going to mandade participation I don't want the corporations to profit from the mandate... No public option then no mandate... Can't have one without the other...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:48 AM

I think anyone who is quibbling about all of that stuff at this point probably already has insurance. For those of us who don't have any, this bill is a real improvement, and very much needed. For them, it's theoretical. For us, it's a matter of life and death.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:50 AM

BTW, I'm gettin' just a little sick and tired of smalled populated states gettin' larger and larger chuncks of federal tax dollars just because they also have 2 Senators...

Ben Nelson, who held a gun to Harry Reid's head over this bill, brought home the pork for Nebraska in that after 2016 the federal governement (my taxes) would pay Nebraska's share of Medicaid for folks under 133% of poverty line... No other state got this except, you guessed it, Ben Nelson's... I find it very sad that Nelson said that one of his two reasons for opposing the bill was that it was going to cost the federal governemnt too much money but then came on board after the federal governemnt agreed to spend even more to satisfy Nelson??? I mean, what hypocrisy!!!

Anyway, this so-called reform bill by the Seante is nowhere near law as it now must be reconciled with the House bill and I, for one, wouldn't mind seein' it take several more months if it means that it will take only 51 votes and is a good bill... I mean, what's the hurry??? The Repubs have been pushed to the side anyway and now it's up to the Dems to make it right...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:53 AM

The hurry is that people are dying, Bobert, and several more months won't guarantee a better bill, or any bill at all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM

There's still the conference committee to 'maybe' put some more stuff back in it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: michaelr
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 01:09 PM

Carol said: "I think anyone who is quibbling about all of that stuff at this point probably already has insurance. For those of us who don't have any, this bill is a real improvement, and very much needed. For them, it's theoretical. For us, it's a matter of life and death."

I don't get this. You will be forced to buy insurance from the big companies. If you wanted that, couldn't you have done it all along?

It's not "quibbling" to oppose a multi-billion dollar giveaway to huge corporations in favor of real reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 01:48 PM

Please pardon this poor uneducated peasant's ignorance (bowing obsequiously and tugging forelock), but could someone please explain this to me:    If a whole bunch of people (47 million, wasn't it?) can't afford health insurance, how will Congress passing a law saying they must buy health insurance enable them to afford it?

A really dumb question, I know, but. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 01:55 PM

Ya' know, Carol, this reform won't even go into effect until 1014 so I repeat, "What's the big hurry"... I mean, isn't it more important to get it right seein' that it's not going to be here for a long time to come??? The same number of people are going to die either way...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 01:57 PM

Carol C: Your statement to Bobert, "The hurry is that people are dying and several months won't guarantee a better bill at all."

I assume you are aware that if the final bill is passed, the benefits won't be in effect for four more years, right? Think the Democrats can declare a moratorium on dying for four years?

I think it is possible that the Democrats themselves my defeat the bill in conference and if so, maybe there can be a greater effort to get a better bi-partisan one.

Those of you who hate the private insurance companies should shed no crocodile tears for that industry. When the stock market closed Friday, after the news that 50 votes were attainable, stock in insurance companies closed higher than ever.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 02:39 PM

The problem for people with pre-existing conditions (which includes age) is that the insurance companies charge much, much higher premiums for such people than for everyone else. What makes this bill better for those of us in this situation is that the bill will not allow them to do that any longer. That's why I'm not against the bill, even though it requires most people to buy insurance. The other part that encourages me is that there is a hardship exemption for people who can't afford what the insurance companies are charging. So with the combination of subsidies, hardship exemptions and limits in what insurance companies can charge, I feel that I can support the bill in the absence of a public option or single payer not for profit.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 02:41 PM

Bobert, every day that the bill is delayed significantly reduces the chances of anything getting passed at all. That's the hurry. And even though the bill doesn't go into effect until 2014 for adults, it will kick in immediately for children. That's not anything to sneeze at.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 02:44 PM

DougR, I have no problem with the bill being improved in conference. But it can't go to conference until after it's been passed in the Senate.

And I am aware that for adults, the bill doesn't go into effect until 2014, but as I said to Bobert, it will kick in immediately for children. Children are dying now from lack of access to medical care. That needs to be changed as soon as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 02:47 PM

One final word on that - if I have to wait until 2014 to get health care, that still is way better for me than the situation I am in right now, which is that if nothing changes, I will have to wait until 2021 until I can get access to health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 03:35 PM

My concern as it regards to folks with pre-conditions, is the insurance may be available, but the cost may be too high for many of them to afford, even with subsidies, etc. We will just have to wait to see what the actual bill looks like when it comes out of conference.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 03:40 PM

I've already addressed that concern. The Senate bill puts limits on what insurance companies can charge everyone, and in particular, what they can charge people with pre-existing conditions. Short of a public option or single payer not for profit, that's the best we can possibly get (along with the subsidies and insurance exchanges).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:47 PM

Still, they haven't done anything to control cost!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:53 PM

Cost of what? If they put limits on what the insurance companies can charge, how is that not "doing something to control cost"?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM

Seein' as some version has passed both chambers of Congress it is now very much in the Dems hands... The Repubs have been bumped off the track by their own choosing... The two versions will have to be reconciled in order for the bill to go to Obama for signiture... So unless the House just rubber stamps the Senate's bill, something that is being referred to as "ping-ponging", then it's going to take some time to get it shaped up and reconciled... If it takes another couple months and comes out with some form of public option or better governemnt oversight of the pools then it is very concievable that over the long run it will save more lives than if it were just rushed thru as it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:19 PM

I don't think the Senate bill has passed yet. I think it's scheduled for a vote late tonight. However...

I was talking specifically about the Senate version, which needs to get passed before anything can go to conference. I'm all in favor of putting the good stuff back in the bill in conference, but I don't see any more chance of the final version of the bill going to a vote if it contains a public option than the Senate bill that they're about to vote on was able to. The final version of the bill will still have to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and Nelson has already said he won't vote for cloture if the final version contains the public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:24 PM

There is always the possibility of the bill going thru "reconciliation", Carol, that would, if I understand the process, only involve having to muster 51 votes... But, yes, the Senate must first pass something and then the fun begins...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:31 PM

I don't have any problem with the bill getting passed through reconciliation. But some people are saying that process would have to get past a lot of committee heads who aren't very enthusiastic about the public option, which makes it more difficult that a lot of people think. That would probably be my first choice if it would work, though.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM

"'Cost of what? If they put limits on what the insurance companies can charge, how is that not "doing something to control cost"?'"

             The cost of health care. The cost of insurance is only part of the problem, and that's pretty easily dealt with. In order to do anything constructive over the long term, they need to do something about the cost of care itself.
             The best way to do that is to protect health care professionals and hospitals from frivilous suits. That would do away with a lot of what they are calling "defensive medicine." I would also lower the cost of malpractice insurance.
             If they kept the part in the bill about training more health care professionals, that would help too. I haven't heard how that part of the bill did. It was up against the AMA and others.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM

10-4, Carol....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 10:32 AM

""I agree with michaelr... Obama gets much of the blame here... If he doesn't roll up his sleeves and do some of the heavy liftin' he ain't gonna get anything important thru this Congress...

Plus, the Dem really need to explore the "nuclear option"... I think it's time for the Senate to become something other than the place where solutions go to die...""

I think that's less than fair, Bobert. You can't really blame Obama for failure to achieve, when the dice are so loaded it is almost impossible to succeed.

As long as all Repubs vote the Party line, (and who has seen them pay any attention to conscience in the last ten years), it just needs one Democrat dissident to block any Democrat bill. Given that at least two "Democrat voting" senators are, so we are told, suspect, there never is a chance of success in delivering any legislation that does not have Republican Party backing.

It ain't democracy guys! In a real democracy 51 percent is a winning majority, and until that pertains in both houses, then Democrat bills at least will just go there to die.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 10:40 AM

Still there's quite a difference between controlling the cost of health care and bringing down the price of insurance premiums.
            If you simpy concentrate on insurance, you've not addressed the underlying cause.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 11:34 AM

So the Senate bill hasn't passed yet. Last night's vote was just to prevent a filibuster (cloture vote). There's still a few votes that need to happen before the bill passes, some of which also require a 60 vote majority. They're hoping to get it done before Christmas. However, 60 Senators did vote for cloture last night.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 11:40 AM

I think it's worth noting, Riginslinger, that even if health care costs would be brought down, the insurance companies will continue to gouge the consumers and make their profit by denying care to those who need it, so whether or not they address the cost of care, they still need to address the price of insurance.

One of the reasons for the high cost of care is that doctors are financially incentivized to do more procedures than necessary (aside from the issue of malpractice considerations) because they are paid by the procedure rather than being paid for results. Fixing that situation would go even further toward bringing down the cost of care than tort reform would.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 01:26 PM

Frankly, I don't think you can separate tort reform from excess testing, but anything that could be done on that front would be helpful. Also, the president has mentioned that consolidating medical records would lower costs, and there are probably a number of other things that could be done.

               Hopefully, Congress is thinking about keeping costs down, and not just pushing through a political agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 02:01 PM

Yeah, Carol, the final bill has not passed and best estimate of when it will is Christmas Eve... But the 60-40 procedural vote, unless something even wierer than what we've seen allready occurs, is an indication that Leibermen and the "Other Three" have had s8ufficient lubricant thrown their way and it is pretty much a "done deal"...

And, Don, I think we are in agreement that 51 votes should be enough to get a bill thru the Senate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 03:15 PM

"...51 votes should be enough to get a bill thru the Senate..."

The Republicans sure thought so when passing massive tax cuts for the rich a few years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 05:25 PM

Rig-
The insurance companies grab about 27% off the top. Trimming that would be a large cost-reduction measure. Tort reform would help some--though perhaps less than you might think. Government-sponsored medical education would be a huge help, as would freeing the government to negotiate drug prices. A better centralized record-keeping system could be a major cost-saver, and preventing prescribing doctors from making money on needless tests would be another.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 05:38 PM

True enough, Bill... Ya' see, the fillibuster wasn't used all that much back then... The current batch of Repubs use it almost daily... That is why its time for the nuclear option as a way of bustin' up this little ballgame that the Repubs have perfected... They are making the Dems look like Boy Scouts when it comes to obstructionist tactics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 06:42 PM

"This marks the first time in our nation's history that comprehensive health reform has come to this point. And it appears that the American people will soon realize the genuine reform that offers security to those who have health insurance and affordable options to those who do not.

I'm grateful to Senator Harry Reid and every senator who's been working around the clock to make this happen. And I'm grateful to you, and every member of the Organizing for America community, for all the work you have done to make this progress possible.
After a nearly century-long struggle, we are now on the cusp of making health insurance reform a reality in the United States of America.

As with any legislation, compromise is part of the process. But I'm pleased that recently added provisions have made this landmark bill even stronger. Between the time when the bill passes and the time when the insurance exchanges get up and running, insurance companies that try to jack up their rates do so at their own peril. Those who hike their prices may be barred from selling plans on the exchanges.

And while insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions once the exchanges are open, in the meantime there will be a high-risk pool where people with pre-existing conditions can purchase affordable coverage.
A recent amendment has made these protections even stronger. Insurance companies will now be prohibited from denying coverage to children immediately after this bill passes. There's also explicit language in this bill that will protect a patient's choice of doctor. And small businesses will get additional assistance as well.

These protections are in addition to the ones we've been talking about for some time. No longer will insurance companies be able to drop your coverage if you become sick and no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for treatments that you need.

Under this bill families will save on their premiums; businesses that would see their costs rise if we don't act will save money now and in the future. This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. Because it's paid for and gets rid of waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.

Finally, this reform will extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who don't have it.

These are not small changes. These are big changes. They're fundamental reforms. They will save money. They will save lives."

President Obama

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 07:27 PM

"The insurance companies grab about 27% off the top."

                I suspect you're right about this, Dick, and that might even be a modest estimate. What I'm saying, though, that's not really a health care cost--of course it would seem to be to the consumer--it's more like an overhead cost and could be dealt with by other means.

               The way things are set up now, you have to go to a GP to get a referal to see a specialist, but there's a huge shortage of GPs, so that would be something to work on. What if the patient went to a Nurse Practioner to be refered to a GP, so people with sniffles and minor aches and pains wouldn't have to go any further?

               That might not work--I certainly don't know enough about it--but those are the kinds of practical measures that should bring down costs, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 10:36 PM

Yeah, thanks Amos, for quoting Obama's speech. My, he sure can talk good.

But the fact remains that this so-called "reform" is a huge gift to the insurance and drug corporations.

Women's abortion rights will be slashed.

People will be fined for not buying the corporations' "products".

Nothing positive is being accomplished here.

The man is a fraud, and so is this deal. It's business as usual, folks, I hate to say I told you so, but...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 09 - 09:59 AM

"There is a lot to like in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cover more than 30 million of the uninsured and would, by 2019, result in 94 percent of all citizens and legal residents below Medicare age having health insurance. That is a big improvement from the current 83 percent.

It also estimates that the bill would reduce deficits over the next decade by $132 billion and even more in the following decade. Despite all the exaggerated Republican rhetoric that the bill will lead to fiscal disaster, it has been carefully and responsibly drafted so that it is fully paid for without busting future budgets.

Important elements of the bill have been strengthened during the struggle. An independent board and other new entities would be given greater powers than previously planned to test and implement cost-saving measures free of political lobbying. Tax credits to help small businesses buy coverage have been expanded.

Insurance companies will be deterred from jacking up premiums just before the reforms take effect, prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits and annual limits will be tightly restricted. Insurers will also be required to spend more on medical care and less on administrative costs and profits than they currently do.

The two big concessions that were made in the Senate were unfortunate, but not fatal. The original bill would have created a new public plan to compete with private ones. That was replaced with a likely weaker alternative: a couple of private plans that would be supervised by an obscure government agency that administers heath benefits for federal employees. The reform package should include a public plan, but the absence of one is not a good reason to vote against the bill.

The Senate flirted briefly with a proposal to allow people ages 55 to 64 to buy into the Medicare program to create competition to private plans on new insurance exchanges. The buy-in idea was intriguing, but it was never vetted carefully enough to analyze how it would work in conjunction with other reforms. Its elimination does not make the bill worth opposing.

In another concession, the Senate bill would allow states to ban the coverage of abortions by health plans sold on the new exchanges. Those exchanges will allow people who buy health insurance to choose from an array of private plans, with subsidies provided to help low- and middle-income people pay the premiums.

This amounts to deplorable interference by state governments into decisions that should be made by a woman and her doctor — and abortion rights groups are right to object. The implacable Republican opposition to reform, and obstruction from a handful of Democrats, have made this bill less effective and less fair than it might have been. Still, the United States Senate has a chance this week to get past the bickering and haggling that have robbed it of Americans' trust and pass a historic piece of legislation...." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM

Amos,

A pity that the bill(s) being considered do not do what Obama wants.

Insurance rates for everyone will rise- they have to.

In Maryland, the profit margin is regulated. When there are 400 billion in new taxes on the insurance companies, and they have additional expenses that they cannot put on the one incurring it ( ie, the pnes they charge extra for now) they will just raise ALL rates to cover the additional costs. NOTHING in either bill to avoid that.


So all the claims of no increased costs are bull.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM

Insurance rates for everyone are going to rise without the bill. As they are doing now, exponentially, and have been doing for decades. The insurance companies don't need the excuse of more taxes to raise their rates. The only excuse they need (and use) is that they want more money and bigger profits. However, in the Senate bill, there is a cap on the percentage of the money they take in from those they insure that can go to toward things that aren't the provision of health care (and this percentage is lower than the one that exists currently). That means that there is a limit on how much of the premiums they can use for things like taxes (and profit, advertizing and lobbying costs, corporate jets and other expensive executive perks). This provision is one of the things I like about the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Dec 09 - 03:22 PM

I just realized a flaw in my reasoning. If the percentage can't go above a certain amount, they can raise the amount and stay within the percentage. However, the bill also limits on how much insurance companies can raise their rates. Which is another thing I like about the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 09 - 06:13 PM

This is the part that worries me the most, Carol... The health insurance industry is made up of masterful crooks and lawyers who will scoure this bill and it won't take them anytime at all to figure out how to game the new system... Same as the banking industry... I say to put provisions in the bill that involves jail time for first offenses...

(But Boderdz... Isn't that over regulating???)

Well... Yes, it is and I thyink jail is all that corrks and lawyers understand... The banks still won't lend to anyone but other banks... Hey, we bailed them out... Same with the health insurance companies... And whatever happened to the 90% proposal rather than the 80%... If Midicare can operate on 3% then even if the crooks don't cheat they still will rake in hundreds of billions in profits by returning 80%... This is more corporate welfare...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 09 - 06:19 PM

"I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!"


The increased COSTS of the new requirements WILL BE PASSED ON to the customers. If there is additional coverage, with no limits, the insurance companies will charge ALL customers more- which is allowed by both the bills.


Noone will be excluded- but the rates will be double or more of what we are presently paying.

AND we get fined if we do not buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 02:33 AM

But there are limits in the Senate bill, beardedbruce. The insurance companies will have limits imposed on how much they can raise premiums.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 08:03 AM

I suspect it's a lot like tax reform. By the time the new program gets into play, sleazy accountants have already figured out how to beat the new regulations. In this case insurance wise-guys will have a number of years to figure it out.

                Before insurance companies were capitalized well enough to buy politicians, they used to call it the "protection racket."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 08:37 AM

No matter, bb...

When the automobile came into existence there were nay-sayers who wouldn't ride in them because they *thought* (haha) that they were either evil or, like their daddies told them, that people would die if they were subjected to long periods of speeds greater than 28 miles per hour???

Then the nay-sayers said that Social Security would bankrupt the country... Same with Medicare... Same with, same with, same with...

Problem is that that is exactly waht nay-sayers do... They are always looking for calamity and chaos...

I'm not saying that this bill is perfect... It isn't... The insurance fat cats still purdy much got their way but, like Howard Dean, if there is that much opposition form the nay-sayers then there must be something good in it so I'm willing to give it a chance... One thing for sure is that the US economy cannot be competetive if it continues to spend 17% of it's GNP on health care...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 10:28 AM

And that's the bottom line, Bobert. The US needs to bring down the "cost" of health cafe.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: michaelr
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 12:51 PM

From MoveOn.org:

Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill

The Senate bill would:
#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs. (1)

#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses. (2)

#3—Impose dangerous restrictions on women's reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill. (3)

#4—Tax American workers' health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach. (4)

#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place. (5)

Of course, these aren't the only problems with the bill. Most glaringly, both the Senate and House bill would leave millions uninsured, (6) a far cry from the vision of universal coverage so many of us have fought for. That remains a long-term goal.
But these five things need to be fixed immediately—and we need to spread the word to make sure House and Senate leadership and the White House get the message we're counting on them to craft a final bill with these key fixes.

Sources:
1. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Public Plan," The New York Times, December 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85859&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=5
"The House Bill and the Senate Bill," The Now! Blog, December 21, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85861&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=6
"Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580516633344953.html
"Why a public health insurance option is key to saving costs," Economic Policy Institute, June 25, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85866&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=7

2. "Assessment of Affordability Provisions in the Exchange in House (H.R. 3962) and Senate (H.R. 3590) Health Reform Bills," Health Care for America Now
http://hcfan.3cdn.net/46590729111c307ccc_lom6b3a6r.pdf
"Finishing Reform Right: Fixing affordability before the President signs a health care bill," The Now! Blog, December 22, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85867&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=8
"Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Individual Mandate," The New York Times, December 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85860&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=9
"The House Bill and the Senate Bill," The Now! Blog, December 21, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85861&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=10
"Senate health bill is launch pad," Jacob Hacker, December 22, 2009
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30871.html

3. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Abortion," The New York Times, December 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85862&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=11

4. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Paying for the Proposals," The New York Times, December 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85863&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=12

5. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Insurance Regulations," The New York Times, December 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85736&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=13

6. "H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act," Congressional Budget Office, November 20, 2009
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10741
"Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," Congressional Budget Office, November 18, 2009
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10731
"REPORT: How the Senate Bill Compares to Other Reform Legislation," Think Progress, November 19, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85670&id=18404-1452401-LQPDZWx&t=14

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM

There's no doubt that it's not the best possible bill. It's still an improvement, though. A big improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 04:33 PM

"One thing for sure is that the US economy cannot be competetive if it continues to spend 17% of it's GNP on health care..."

So, when the NEW BILL costs OVER 17% of the GNP, what are you going to say???

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 05:44 PM

Well, BB, if the new bill will cost more than 17% of GNP (which the budget office says it won't) it would at least cover a helluva lot more people than the present non-system, which woulsd likely exceed 17 also.

It's a bad bill, but it's a lot better than we have now. A good bill would be a political impossibility as long as the filibuster threat requires a 60% vote to accomplish anything

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 09:23 AM

By the by, for all the BuShites whining about the projected cost of the health care bills pending, where's the outrage about the Pentagon Budget- $2,700 for every man woman and child in the Land of the Free[sic] in 2010 alone- rife with corruption, waste (remember the Pentagon admitted in 2000 that it had "lost" $2.3 trillion (yes trillion, sweetheart contracts for obsolete weaponry, etc etc.

$2.3 trillion would pay all the costs of completely universal health care for the duration PLUS the bank bailout,PLUS the stimulus package.

I guess "reality has a well-known liberal bias" after all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 10:07 AM

The Senate has passed the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 10:10 AM

Surprise, surprise...

I find it interesting that the Repubs, who promised to fight this bill to the bitter end, ended up negogiating with Harry Reid for an earlier vote so they could get outta town...

So much for bitter ends???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 10:33 AM

Aren't we supposed to say "It has come to pass"?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 11:57 AM

Jim Bunning of Kentucky is the one GOP Senator who didn't vote. An ex-major league pitcher who is famous for saying, "When you've dealt with Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra and Stan Musial, the people I'm dealing with now (meaning members of Congress) are kind of down the scale,"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 12:46 PM

It hasn't come to pass yet. It still has to make it out of conference and the final version has to be voted on by both houses. Then the President has to sign it. Then it will have come to pass...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM

Washington Post


A health-care victory that stinks



By David S. Broder
Thursday, December 24, 2009

The health-care reform bill coming out of the Senate presents a real dilemma for spectators: How do you applaud while holding your nose?

As one who covered the Clintons' struggle 15 years ago to pass health-care reform and who wrote an overly long book about their failure to even bring it to a vote in a Democratic Congress, I am in awe at the prospect of such a bill making it all the way to the White House.

When implemented years from now, it promises to make as many as 30 million men and women who now live with the fear of illness or hospitalization leading straight to financial ruin eligible for the same care as their more fortunate, insured neighbors.

Six decades after FDR's death, one of his Four Freedoms will, at long last, be guaranteed to almost all Americans. And the shame of this affluent society tolerating the denial of health care to its citizens will be largely lifted.

But Lord, what a load of embarrassment accompanies this sense of satisfaction! What should have been a moment of proud accomplishment for the Senate, right up there with the passage of Social Security and the first civil rights bills, was instead a travesty of low-grade political theater -- angry rhetoric and backroom deals.


There's blame enough to go around. Start with the 40 Republicans, not one of whom was willing to break out of the mold of negative conformity and offer a sustained working partnership in serious legislative effort.

But even those Republicans who were initially inclined to do that -- and there were at least a handful of them -- were turned away by the White House and the Senate Democratic leaders, who never lifted their sights much beyond the Democratic ranks.

Forced to bargain for every vote among the 60 in his caucus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did what he usually does: He reduced the negotiations to his own level of transactional morality. Incapable of summoning his colleagues to statesmanship, he made the deals look as crass and parochial as many of them were -- encasing a historic achievement in a wrapping of payoff and patronage.

The taint has rubbed off on the bill. This week's Quinnipiac University poll found a majority of Americans disapproving of the legislation by 53 to 36 percent and an overwhelming number -- 73 to 18 percent -- saying they do not believe it will, as promised, reduce future budget deficits. It now becomes President Obama's responsibility to strengthen the bill's cost-saving features and present them in a better way. Two of them are vulnerable to attack when the bill goes back to conference with the House in January. Liberal Democrats do not like the independent commission in the Senate bill having power to enforce savings in Medicare and the private health system. And labor does not accept the Senate plan to tax high-end insurance plans.

Obama has not intervened with a heavy hand as the bill has moved through the House and Senate, but now it is time for him to act.

It would help a lot if he reached out personally to those few Republicans who might still want to improve the bill rather than sink it. And it would help even more if he shamed the Democrats into rescinding some of the crasser bargains they made to buy votes along the way.

The country would welcome even a few signs that this legislation has bipartisan support.

Then we could applaud its final passage and take our thumbs from our noses.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 05:50 PM

We should rejoice and not complain. Every one of us has a relative, if not ourselves, who will benefit. I don't like how they tried to make it sound like it would be seamless and painless and people who complained about Medicare cuts were fools, but the main thing is there is something.

I wish it was tied to a couple of things..people behaving themselves so there were way fewer drug problems and crime, people realizing that having children out of wedlock is contributing mightily to poverty and social ills. I hope it gets tied to reforms in food stamps, with a small amount monthly alloted for free choice, junk food, bad for you stuff, and the majority of food stamps tied into actual nutritious food, such as WIC already does..a bit too restrictedly but it labels foods in markets as OK for WIC. This will improve the health of people subsisting on unhealthy foods, and will have to be tied to making food available in their neighborhoods.

And it is pretty clear what causes diabetes and resulting huge health mess..too many starches essentially...sugars also being a problem but most bad carbs come from too much starch...knock that down..get good information out to people and health problems will be reduced. THen money can be saved. I doubt it will be for a while and I am quite happy to pay more taxes as well as taxes on my good health insurance to help it along. mg

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 08:08 AM

""Six decades after FDR's death, one of his Four Freedoms will, at long last, be guaranteed to almost all Americans. And the shame of this affluent society tolerating the denial of health care to its citizens will be largely lifted.""

PARTIALLY Bruce......There's quite a way to go till you can say largely. As I understand it, with 30 million newly covered, there will still be 10 - 17 (depending on where you get the figures) million outstanding.

Not there yet, Buddy

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 09:20 AM

My apologies Bruce, those were David S Broder's words, not yours.

My response still stands though.

5/10 for improvement. Could do much better.

The bill, not Obama. I think he has such a mountain to climb that we should applaud him for reaching base camp.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 12:25 PM

"...people who complained about Medicare cuts were fools..."


                            Why?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 12:26 PM

"But even those Republicans who were initially inclined to do that -- and there were at least a handful of them -- were turned away by the White House and the Senate Democratic leaders, who never lifted their sights much beyond the Democratic ranks."

Any documentation for that? As I recall, there were lengthy committee meetings with all sorts of concessions to Republican demands. No GOP votes, though"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 02:34 PM

As I recall,

1. Republicans were not informed of committee meetings.

2. Republicans were locked out of committe meetings

3. Republicans were not invited to the White House conferences that the Democrats were.

4. Republican amendments were killed without votes in committee.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM

The largest portion of folks that will not be covered, if today's Washington Post has is correct, will be illegal aliens and folks who chose to pay the fine rather than participate...

As for the Repubs not having a say in this??? The Repubs telegraphed their intentions a long, long time ago... I mean, if they wanted to be players they could have but they made the choice to obstruct and obstruct they did... This was all politics on their part hoping that things will go badly so they can get back in power and the the big donations that the party in power generally gets from the Fat Cats... This decision was a calculated risk for the GOP and one that may very well bite them on their ass...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 10:46 AM

Can it be assumed that the Republicans will pledge themselves to reverse these reforms any time they are in a position to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM

Yes. I think it likely and probably their opportunity will come in 2010.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 01:54 PM

This is why I have mixed feelings about eliminating the filibuster. If the Republicans gain a majority in either house, and if they try to reverse the hard won reforms we get during the Democratic majorities, I hope the Democrats will filibuster like hell to prevent the Republicans from doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: mg
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 03:30 PM

I was trying to say people who complained about Medicare cuts were called fools, rather than they were fools. mg

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 06:37 PM

Can it be assumed that the Republicans will pledge themselves to reverse these reforms...

Yup, right back to 1959-

Plus ça change...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 07:38 PM

I rather suspect that by that time rather a lot of people will have had medical treatment they'd have been unable to get previously. That could be enough on its own for a pledge like that to lose them the election.

It's worth noting that the British Conservatives, who fought tooth and nail against the setting up of the NHS, ever since then have had to declare their undying support for it. Even when they haven't necessarily meant it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 03:01 AM

It's very possible that not many people who currently don't have access to care will have received it by the 2010 election. Depends on when they decide to have the reform kick in. If the Senate version is what they go with, only children will experience a change until 2014.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 12:29 PM

Now that was disappointing - hopefully This One will work

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 09:38 AM

Well, children can't vote, but their parents and grandparents presumably can.

But won't the restrictions on the ability of insurance companies to refuse to meet their moral obligations kick in sooner than that?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 10:04 AM

I don't think they do according to the Senate bill. Hopefully in conference they will make something available to the people with pre-existing conditions right way as well. That would help the Democrats in the 2010 election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 10:55 AM

It sounds like the Dean followers have given up on a public option. House members are backing off of that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: michaelr
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 12:10 PM

Fucking traitors. Let's vote every one of the bastards out at the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 03:56 PM

Carol: You probably know about this, but here is the interim high risk pool to be put in place until 2014, when the exchanges will be in place:

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf at pages 41 et seq. (starting with section 1101.)

I can't guess what it would cost you, but I get the impression that it would be the average individual premium for a "standard" population, i.e. pre-existing issues can't be grounds for denial or rate setting. This might be based on national averages(??), which we saw earlier was far lower than your state average.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jan 10 - 04:38 PM

Thanks, heric. I'll check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 03:54 PM

Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:16:18 -0700
I fear that too many good, God fearing people in the United States are so concerned about just making it day to day they are not watching what is going on with this corrupt government, Democrats and Repulicans alike. I pray that we all wake up before it is too late. If you love this country and everything that our forefathers fought for, please forward this to everyone you know and let them know we have to be verbal and fight this fight.

Jon E. Melton



The Truth About the Health Care Act
Michael Connelly,
Ret. Constitutional Attorney
Well, I've done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was
frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal
immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever
occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, to all of your personal healthcare and financial information, and personal information from your employer, physician and hospital: a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may
provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. There is nothing in the Health Care Bill that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax; which deprives us of property without the due process of law.
Three amendments out of the original ten in the Bill of Rights, are effectively nullified by this Health Care Act. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or
anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult
the source, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 05:07 PM

Mr. Connelly has neglected to tell us which Bill he is commenting on. We have no way of knowing whether or not he is even commenting on one that is still being considered, since we don't even know when Mr. Connelly wrote his little screed. We don't know if he is talking about a House bill or a Senate bill, and we still don't know what the final bill will look like, so we know he can't possibly be commenting on that.

More bullshit from the insurance industry cabal.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 06:58 PM

""The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever
occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.""


Which residential facility for the terminally bewildered does this paranoid imbecile inhabit, and who gave him a platform upon which to spout this arrant bullshit?

There are at least a dozen countries with proper healthcare, and not one of them is without a private system, happily operating alongside the National system, without the slightest detriment to either. And there is not one of those countries in which ANY,, let alone "ALL", decisions about personal care are made by government bureaucrats.

As to his lunatic conspiracy theory, in most countries that would get him sectioned to the local Laughing Academy without delay, but it seems that US lunatics get a chance at being President, and running the whole Asylum.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 07:22 PM

Me thinks that Mr. Connelly recieves monthlt checks from the insurance lobby...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 08:12 AM

At least we know Joe Wilson didn't lie after all!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:31 PM

January 20, 2010 Economic Scene
Centrist, and Yet Not Unified
By DAVID LEONHARDT, The New York Times

The stunning victory of Scott Brown, the Massachusetts Republican who will have Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat, suggests that public opinion has turned against the proposal. It's hard to know exactly how Democrats will respond. But given the sudden uncertainty over health reform's fate, this does seem to be an important time to boil down its substance.

Here's my attempt: The bills before Congress are politically partisan and substantively bipartisan.

What does that mean? The first part is obvious. All 60 Senate Democrats and independents voted for the bill, and all 40 Republicans voted against it. The second part is the counterintuitive one. Yet it's true.

The current versions of health reform are the product of decades of debate between Republicans and Democrats. The bills are more conservative than Bill Clinton's 1993 proposal. For that matter, they're more conservative than Richard Nixon's 1971 plan, which would have had the federal government provide insurance to people who didn't get it through their job.

Today's Congressional Republicans have made the strategically reasonable decision to describe President Obama's health care plan, like almost every other part of his agenda, as radical and left wing. And the message seems to be at least partly working, based on polls and the Massachusetts surprise. But a smart political strategy isn't the same thing as accurate policy analysis.

The better way to describe the Obama agenda, I think, is that it's ambitious (even radical) in its scope and sharply different in direction from the Reagan-Bush era, but mostly moderate in terms of how far it goes on any single issue.

Mr. Obama wants to undo George W. Bush's high-income tax cuts, but would keep the basic Reagan tax structure intact. The administration is trying to re-regulate financial markets, but has rejected the sweeping ideas favored by the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, British regulators and many liberals. The pattern is especially clear on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, a centrist approach isn't necessarily the best one — no matter how good it may sound to call yourself a centrist. Sometimes, Republicans are right about an issue (whether the welfare system was broken) and sometimes Democrats are (whether to respond to an economic crisis with fiscal stimulus or a Hooverite approach).

Maybe the country would be better off with a big-government health care plan, like a Medicare for all. Or maybe we'd be better off with a free-market version, in which people shopped for their own plans in an open marketplace. Those are interesting enough arguments. They also make it clear that the bills before Congress are not particularly radical.

A little history is useful here. The first modern attempt at health reform, as you've probably heard, came from Harry Truman. After World War II, he proposed a government insurance plan that would cover everyone. Republicans and the American Medical Association labeled the plan "socialistic" — which, in some ways, it was.

Opponents instead called for expanding the private insurance system. Nixon, then a young California representative, and others suggested government subsidies for people who couldn't afford insurance, as Paul Starr explains in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "The Social Transformation of American Medicine." But the socialism critique was strong enough to defeat Truman's plan without need for compromise.

The next push came from John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, who tried to cover only the elderly. Critics cried socialism about Medicare, too. "Behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country," as Reagan, who was then working as the American Medical Association's spokesman, said in a widely circulated speech. This time, though, big Congressional majorities and sympathy for the elderly let the Democrats prevail.

Once Nixon was president, the focus switched from expanding access to controlling costs, as you might expect with a Republican. He favored giving doctors incentives to set up prepaid group practices, which had the potential to provide better, cheaper care than the fee-for-service system. Ted Kennedy often said he regretted not making a deal with Nixon on health reform.

The current bills, for better and worse, are akin to a negotiated settlement to this six-decade debate. It would try to end our status as the only rich country with tens of millions of uninsured people, as liberals have long urged. And it would do so using private insurers and government subsidies, as conservatives prefer. (I realize that some liberals argue that a more liberal bill would have fared better, but the history of the health reform — not to mention this country's conservative instincts — offers reason for doubt.)

On cost control, the bill is similarly centrist. In 1993, Mr. Clinton pushed for putting a cap on the growth of insurance premiums — an idea similar to having a national health budget, which conservative governments in other countries have done. Today's Democrats saw that move as too radical. Instead, they have borrowed Nixon's old push for prepaid group practices, which are now called accountable care organizations.

Together, the cost-control measures are serious enough that the Congressional Budget Office estimates they would save the government $1 trillion in the next 20 years, over and above the cost of covering the uninsured. Some experts remain doubtful of these projections. Others, though, think the budget office is underestimating the savings, as it has with past Medicare changes.

The one big conservative idea that's largely missing is malpractice reform. But the White House said several times that it was willing to negotiate on this issue. And think about it: Rahm Emanuel, the Obama chief of staff, likes to say the only thing that's not negotiable is success. Don't you think Mr. Obama would have gladly taken some heat from trial lawyers in exchange for passing health reform with bipartisan support and making himself look like a transformational leader?

The obvious question, then, is how the current bill could have inspired such skepticism from voters.

The unified Republican message is part of the answer. So is the fact that Mr. Obama never found a strong, consistent way to sell the bill. That said, health reform was never going to be easy.

Something like 90 percent of voters already have insurance. Many imagine that they will never lose it. Many people even believe they don't pay for their insurance, because the money comes out of their paycheck before they see it. (They do pay in lost income.) Polls also show that Americans are more aware of our medical system's strengths than its weaknesses (like needlessly high error rates). As for Medicare being on course to break the bank — voters rarely get excited about future fiscal problems.

So health reform was probably destined to inspire more fear than hope. It's been that way since Truman.

In the wake of Mr. Brown's victory, the decision facing Democrats is not whether to start with a blank slate and try to write a bill based on both liberal health care ideas and conservative ones. They've already tried that.

The decision is whether to expand insurance and try to control costs, despite the political risks, or whether that project will once again be put off until another day.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:50 PM

"Don't you think Mr. Obama would have gladly taken some heat from trial lawyers in exchange for passing health reform with bipartisan support and making himself look like a transformational leader?"


            No, I don't think so. But the best thing they can do now is to simply pass the Senate version of the bill, and hopefully some future Republican administration can go after trial lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:39 AM

Why public support for health care failed

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:47 PM

Heric: Thanks for posting those two interesting articles. I found the NYT article particularly interesting and am sure I would never have seen it had you not posted it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:13 PM

Which residential facility for the terminally bewildered does this paranoid imbecile inhabit...?

He shares a room with Douggie-Boy R

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:29 PM

As opposed to the padded cell for Greg F?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:19 AM

It looks like its dead. Pelosi says she doesn't have the votes in the house to pass the Senate version.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:38 AM

David Leonhardt's NYT op-ed is entirely correct in that:

1. The bill is not liberal but centrist/conservative and...

2. Obam never found a way to sell it...

This is the problem that Dems have had going back for decades... They talk too much... It doesn't much matter if they are right and advocating policies that would benefit the country it's just that they seem incapable of narrowing down their positions to fit on a bumper sticker... The Repubs have mastered the bumper sticker message and it shows... Here in this area of rural Virginia most of the folks can recite the bumper stickers... Try to engage them in conversation and they are totally incapable of explaining the positions at all but revert back to the bumper sticker, over and over and over...

This is why the Dems have failed...

Sellin' isn't running yer mouth... It's first listening, then trying feed back what you have heard in the fewest words to show that you are listening... Dems don't understand that concept...

If Obama had just said from the very beginning something like "We can't afford to spend 17% of our GNP on health care and be competetive enough to create new jobs" and just left it at that but say it over and over and over and have all the Dems in Congress say the same thing over and over until it was hammered into the pea-brains of the electorate he would have a bill by now... But no... He and the Dems couldn't stay on message... They have been like a football team where none of the player know what play was called... And it shows...

So... Not this time either, folks... Maybe in 2030... or 3030...or 4030???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:28 PM

It doesn't have to die. I don't think Obama will just pack up. Rather than setting up a NASA-inspired command and control center, we can understand and accept building blocks. Mandatory community rated pools with insurers selling across state lines. Tax vouchers and credits to indivuduals with tax benfits to themselves, bit their employers. Federal subsidies of state high risk pools, if we can't get agreement on rules to get them into the larger community ratings.

None of this helps Medicare which needs to be fixed, but that part of the plan wasn't being sold honestly.

It didn't need to be this complicated to be effective. People didn't believe the federal government could make good on all promises, especially when their promises changed so much over time, for "political realities," as if the ideas and plans didn't have cohesiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:05 PM

Bobert: "The bill is not liberal but centrist/conservative ...and
Obama never found a way to sell it."

Right now I don't think Obama could sell fur coats to Eskimos.

And the bill WAS liberal - not centrist and certainly not conservative!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:52 PM

Both of the bills are definitely centerist. They rely on market based solutions. They are about halfway between the more left idea of single payer not for profit and the more right-wing idea of letting the insurance industry do whatever it wants. That puts them right at the center.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:04 PM

The Health Care Bill Is Worth Saving

Anyone claiming this legislation is an easy call has delusions of omniscience.

Saturday, Jan. 23, 2010
by Jonathan Rauch

"Doing nothing would be better than doing what they are proposing to do," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told CNN in December. Regardless of what you think of Thune's answer, he raises the right question about the Democrats' health care reform. Is it better than nothing?

Republicans think that doing nothing this year might yield a GOP House majority in 2011 and a better bill in 2012. Maybe. But after the last attempt crashed in 1994, it was 15 years before Congress was willing to try again. If the current effort fails, the next chance for comprehensive reform might not arrive for years.

In the meantime, piecemeal changes might make matters worse instead of better. Absent broader reforms, legislative scrambles to cut Medicare would mostly shift costs to private payers, and requirements to cover all comers could price private insurance nearly outof existence. A few more years of ad-hockery and Band-Aids might leave the public in the mood for exactly the kind of single-payer socialized medical system that Republicans dread. Doing nothing, in other words, is not a risk-free proposition, even for the John Thunes of the world.

The Democrats' shocking loss this week of the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts certainly increases the odds that Republicans will block the bill. Still, even without a filibuster-proof majority, House Democrats could finish the job by swallowing their pride and simply passing the Senate bill. Should they?

I think the answer is yes. The Senate health bill, though flawed, passes the Thune test.

True, it could have been so much better. If, for example, it were bipartisan (but Republicans chose to boycott it). If its "pay-fors" were more solid (but this is the U.S. Congress we are talking about). If it were serious about malpractice reform (but these are Democrats we are talking about).

The expansion of health care coverage to many, though not all, of the uninsured may prove to have found the exact sour spot: enough new beneficiaries to increase demand for health services and so raise system costs, but not enough to deliver the risk-spreading and efficiency-capturing benefits of true universality. Despite mandates, many people will manage to free-ride, and some who don't free-ride will pay more in premiums. There is plenty to worry about here.

So what's to like?

After reform is enacted, the taboo on taxing employer-provided health benefits will be shattered once and for all.

First, the expansion of insurance coverage to tens of millions more Americans and the abolition of the "pre-existing conditions" insurance exclusion are changes for the better. A friend of mine made a full recovery from prostate cancer, only to find that he could not get health insurance at any price. Stories like his are common -- too common to be politically sustainable, let alone morally acceptable.

On paper, Congress might have found better ways of making insurance available to high-risk individuals than by requiring insurers to cover them and by creating government-regulated markets ("exchanges") where these individuals can buy insurance; the alternatives, however, are complicated, lack political support, and in the end might make government even bigger. (Indeed, one striking feature of the reform bill, given its all-Democratic provenance, is the extent to which it leaves the existing infrastructure of private health insurance intact. In a few years, the public might be less willing to do that.)

Second, the bill is probably as close to paying for itself as the political system is likely to manage. It would be great if Congress made up-front reductions in other programs, rather than counting on, for example, Medicare savings that may or may not materialize. But, given the political unacceptability of horror stories like my friend's, the real-world alternative to plausible-maybe-almost-sort-of fiscal neutrality is something more like the Republicans' 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, which made no attempt at all to pay for itself.

Although long-term budget projections are squishy, the Congressional Budget Office's are the best we have to go on. Notably, CBO scored the Senate bill as deficit-neutral (actually, it would slightly reduce the deficit) over the reform's second decade after enactment, which is well beyond the window of cost-shifting and timing gimmicks. We could do worse, and possibly will do worse next time around.

And what about bending the cost curve? Health care inflation devours wages, burdens employers, and could eventually bankrupt the government. A reform that fails to grapple with the cost problem, the critics say, is not worth having. I agree.

So how does the reform score on cost control? The original House bill does poorly. However, the Senate-passed bill is better on cost control than many people realize. Although far from optimal, it contains a potential pathway to a restructured health payment system that gets incentives right instead of wrong.

I'll return to that weasel word "potential," but first the major elements. Most economists believe that two pervasive market distortions fuel health cost inflation. The first is Medicare's fee-for-service payment system, which pays providers based on the number of procedures they perform, rewarding inefficiency. The second is the tax deductibility of employer-provided health insurance, which subsidizes high-cost policies, hides the costs of those policies from employees, and denies employees the opportunity to shop around.

Both distortions inhibit market discipline, and both originate with bad government policy. If socialized medicine is state payment for most health care, then the country is there already: When the value of the employer tax subsidy is included, the government (federal and state) pays for almost 60 percent of all U.S. health care, according to Paul Van de Water, an analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Dealing with Medicare and the employer tax deduction is therefore crucial to cost control.

Medicare is a tough problem, both because of the politics and because no one really knows how to fix it on a national scale. The reform bill includes programs designed to identify better payment methods, and it establishes a special commission that could, theoretically, help push through worthwhile Medicare reforms. There is no guarantee, obviously, that those schemes would work. But they might well improve the situation, and they are unlikely to do any harm.

As for the employer tax break, the Senate bill docks it. Not a ton. Only high-premium policies covering a minority of workers would be taxed. But even the limited tax is very important, for several reasons.

Crucially, the threshold for taxation would not rise as fast as health inflation. Translation: Gradually more and more employer-provided policies would be taxed. The change would be incremental, even glacial -- but slow seems to be the only pace with which Americans are comfortable.

Moreover, after reform is enacted, the taboo on taxing employer-provided health benefits will be shattered once and for all. From then on the question will be how much to tax, not whether. A door that had been welded shut will have been pried open. The country will be able to have a new kind of discussion, one in which the tying of health insurance to employment -- which is insane, when you think about it -- is no longer sacrosanct.

Meanwhile, the reform also includes a provision quietly inserted by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that allows a narrow band of workers to cash out their employer's health insurance tax break and use it to buy a policy of their own choosing. In other words, instead of being captured by the employer, the tax subsidy would flow to the employee.

Again, the provision applies only to a few workers -- at first. However, as rising costs push up premiums, more workers would qualify. No less important, the provision puts in place both a precedent and a mechanism for rewiring the system so that consumers, not employers, can make the choices.

Taken together, these measures could set in motion a virtuous cycle. As health costs rise, more employer-provided health plans become taxable, giving employers an incentive to find cheaper plans. As employer-provided plans grow less generous, more employees have an incentive to take a tax credit and shop around, and, as premiums rise, more qualify to do so. Little by little, insurance coverage shifts toward an individual-based, consumer-driven market. And the faster health insurance costs rise, the faster the transition happens. The disease triggers its own antibodies.

Again, no guarantees. The transition would be very gradual, and political blowback could easily disrupt it. But the point is that the reform contains a pathway to sanity. No one can say that about the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:27 PM

What the Dems need is Balls.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:37 PM

Pelosi has admitted that the bill cannot pass. Many Democratic votes will be against the bill in its Senate form. It is time to put the bill back into committees and work out compromises.

The economy and jobs are the first priority at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:42 PM

Yes, whether it should pass is almost certainly an academic question now, but still, I think, a worthwhile exercise and enlightening for future purposes.

(And Pelosi has been wrong before!)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:52 PM

LOL

Turns out the current Great White Hope of the Republican party, Senator Brown, voted for the universal health care in Massachusetts when he was in the state senate there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:35 PM

Bobert prediction:

After last night's State of the Union address, I think that we can now look for a bill to be passed thru budget reconciliation...

(But, Boberdz... Isn't that just below the nuclear option????)

No, it isn't... How do you think Bush got the tax cuts for the rich passed????

So that is what I see happening now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Rumncoke
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:52 PM

At the moment I am feeling rather tired as I am looking after my grandson. His mother has had an operation on her knee to correct a problem with a ligament which caused her knee to dislocate from time to time.

It would have been done earlier, but when she went for a scan which would have been the start of the process a routine pregnancy test came back positive, 1 to 2 weeks.

Being in the UK all re ante natal, birth and post natal medical needs were provided automatically.

The local clinic has monitored the baby's progress from birth, and he was called in for all the innoculations he needs.

Now that young Jake is 6 months old she has had the surgery on the worst knee, spent four days in hospital, but she was so eager to get home that she did not wait for the hospital transport to get home, so my son went to collect her. He had had to collect all the equipment that she would need to help her at home on his previous visits, so everything was ready for her well in advance.

Naturally it is all supplied free of charge.

I feel I should do my bit and look after Jake rather than calling on the services of the child care people who would assist in these circumstances, though he is rather a handfull.

Perhaps when the other knee is operated on in 6 months time and Jake is a one year old I might have to, but I feel that we get so much from our health service I am almost embarassed by it.

We see so much on TV about the problems of health care in the US, in hospital and other dramas where the problems compose almost the entire plot, I really do wonder what is so good about your present system.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:44 PM

Very little, Anne... The doctors ration out gobs and gobs of care on those with good insurance and withhold it from anyone who doesn't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:56 PM

A slight correction: what is excellent about our system is the leading edge techniques and equipment. That is a very different thing than the system of delivering health care which usually requires well-established routines and commodified pharma and equipment. We have a great track record of doing very tricky expensive operations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: gnu
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:30 PM

Today

By Anne-Marie Tobin, The Canadian Press

TORONTO - A group that tracks how long it takes to get medical care in Canada says there's a "black hole" of data on wait times for procedures outside of five identified priority areas.

The Wait Time Alliance also reported Thursday on pediatric surgeries for the first time, saying that although 73 per cent of children received their surgeries within an established benchmark time, more than 17,000 kids waited longer for their surgery last year than medical experts recommend.

It has been six years since Canada's first ministers committed to reducing wait times in the five priority areas — diagnostic imaging, hip and knee replacements, cancer care, sight restoration and cardiac surgery — and the alliance noted there has been "slow improvement."

"But the big picture is that far too many Canadians still experience long waits for needed medical care, and are kept in the dark about the wait they can expect to face," Dr. Lorne Bellan, co-chair of the Wait Time Alliance, said in a conference call.

"Doctors who work on the front lines know that's just not enough progress. In the wait times marathon, we're still on the first mile."

Two provinces were singled out for not doing enough to keep their populations up to date.

"It is very troubling that Alberta and Newfoundland have failed to update their wait time data for more than six months," Bellan said.

"We really don't have a current picture of wait times in those provinces."

He also said that based on Wait Time Alliance benchmarks, Alberta gets an F and a D for cancer radiation therapy.

"This means that roughly half of all cancer patients wait longer than is considered safe by Canada's cancer specialists," Bellan said.

"The scientific evidence is clear. The wait for radiotherapy should be as short as possible. Canada's cancer specialists believe that long waits for cancer radiotherapy are putting patients' lives at risk."

In terms of non-priority areas, the alliance's report card said information is scarce or non-existent, and where it does exist, nearly half of all patients are waiting longer than is medically acceptable.

And in its section devoted to pediatrics, the report card said that delays in performing surgery on children can have a lifelong impact.

"Grades of D in ophthalmology and dentistry mean nearly half of all children wait longer than medically acceptable for these areas, jeopardizing normal vision and speech and brain development," Bellan said.

The issues in dentistry revolve around kids needing procedures for tooth decay, while the ophthalmology queues are driven by those needing surgery for the condition known as wandering eye. In addition, there's demand for plastic surgery to address a cleft lip and-or cleft palate.

The alliance also graded the provinces on how well they publicize wait times on their websites.

"Patients deserve accurate and timely information on the wait they can expect to face," Bellan said. "Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have some of the better wait time websites, but there is great variability in the quality of provincial wait time reporting."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: gnu
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:40 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Woman shoots herself to get help
From: gnu - PM
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 03:06 PM

bobad... good one.

But, not only is Amos correct on the issue of rights, NObody has free health care. SOMEbody has to pay for it.

The problem, I THINK (?) Yanks with "private" health care have is they believe that there will be an increase in taxes and the level of service will drop. And other arguements ensue, of course.

Case in point. Kendall (USA) had ready access to amazing (IMO) private health care for his throat. Over the past dozen years, I had reasonable access for the same condition (Canada.. and it varies by province)). My throat was taken care of. But, last June, something was wrong again. On July 13, my GP sent a referral for an ENT. I saw the ENT on June 1. She saw no cancer with the scope and diagnosed a breathing problem within my nose causing severe snoring, which, combined with my loss of 1.6 of my parotid glands (saliva), was aggravating the past surgeries.

Ultrasound... minimum 6 months on an "urgent basis". Eye doc... 12 months on an "elective basis" (loss of night vision, floaters, sensitivity to sunlight). Physiotherapy... 4 months "urgent" if you are self employed and can't get Workman's Compensation from the government. But, if you are bleeding, the emergency department will see you RFN, depending on how much blood is on the floor... and it's free.

Oh, yeah... presciption drugs are not free here. I pay private health care $1600 a year for an 80% co-pay. It covers some dental too. Single, no kids.

So, I can understand in a way the fear some Yanks with private health care feel. They see their hard work and their health care access and quality being placed in jeopardy with "universal health care", along with increased taxes.

I am NOT saying the level of service for present US private health care WILL be degraded, but if the politicians have to make a choice between Gramma's hernia and sending a rover to Mars or bullets to Iraq, I expect Gramma's shittin her drawers.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:49 PM

Hey gnu - a few days ago, I got four stitches in my thumb. The price tag was more than $500. What do you think about that?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:35 PM

""Hey gnu - a few days ago, I got four stitches in my thumb. The price tag was more than $500. What do you think about that?""

That's bloody disgusting Carol.

My breathing difficulties have now been found to have no cardiac connection, so one week ago I was told that I should contact the orthopods to re-schedule my postponed knee replacement.I phoned immediately, and have an outpatient appointment in two weeks time.

The op is predicted for the autumn, late Sept or early Oct, and I won't be asked for one penny.

I sincerely hope that one day sanity will prevail, and US citizens, all of them, will have the same level of care.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:57 PM

Yeah, we didn't exactly get health care reform this time around.... We got health insurance reform... Hey, it's a start but we have some more heavy lifting to do so that 4 stitches don't cost $500...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:27 PM

McDonald's May Drop Health Plan

WSJ HEALTH INDUSTRY SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The chain has told regulators it may ditch its plan unless a new health-care requirement is waived, Janet Adamy reports. The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world. Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year. Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care. McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients. McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.

More recently, insurers have proposed a round of double-digit premium increases and said new coverage mandates in the law are partly to blame. HHS has criticized the proposed increases as unwarranted.Democrats, looking toward midterm elections in which the health overhaul is an issue, say it already has stopped insurance practices they call abusive, has given rebates to seniors with high out-of-pocket prescription costs and has allowed parents to keep children on their insurance plans until they turn 26.

McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" the mini-med plan unless it got an exemption from the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits. Officials said McDonald's would probably have to hit the 85% figure, which applies to larger group plans. Its insurer, BCS Insurance Group of Oak Brook Terrace, Ill., declined to comment. McDonald's didn't disclose what the plan's current medical loss ratio was. The issue of limited-benefit plans has also hit colleges, which face the same 80-to-85% requirement beginning next year.

"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014." The health law expands Medicaid and offers large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage, but those provisions don't kick in until 2014.

Federal officials say there's no guarantee they can grant mini-med carriers a waiver. They say the answer may not come by November, when many employers require employees to sign up for the coming year's benefits. The government is waiting for the association of state insurance commissioners to draft recommendations. The head of the association's health-insurance committee, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, said she doesn't think these types of mini-med plans deserve an exemption.

"If they are sold as comprehensive coverage, we expect them to meet the same [medical-loss ratio] standards as other health plans," she said. Some options for low-wage workers if they don't get health insurance on the job

More Here

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:55 AM

So the greedy Oligopoly is whining and crying about a dent in their obscene profits and threatening to hold its breath until they turn blue.

What a goddamn surprise. Just like poor, underpaid wall street.

The health care legislation should have imposed price controls on these bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

The message is that "health care reform" did nothing to lower the cost of health care so more people could afford it.

In fact it is causing an increase in health care costs.

Whitehouse.gov: Health reform makes health care more affordable, holds insurers more accountable, expands coverage to all Americans and makes our health system sustainable. I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:35 PM

No, employers and insurance companies, in response to health care reform, are causing an increase in costs so that their obscene profit margins won't be reduced.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

Greg F,

What profit margin to you feel is acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:58 PM

profit margins by industry

Health insurance profit margin by company

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM

BB: what profit margin do the insurance industry and Wall street deem "acceptable" - particularly in the worst recession since 1929??

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:20 PM

"obscene profits"? That must be the insurance companies in Thunderdomia.

"Health insurance companies' costs are only 4 percent of all health care spending. Doctors, hospitals, medicines and tests are the biggest slices, and a government report says their rising prices are the primary driver of higher health care costs."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,Bobert, on the road...
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:09 PM

Yer right, Greg... If doctors and hospitals can get by nicely on what Medicare pays them for procedures then they shouldn't charge private insurance companies more and self insured even more... There is way too much gouging by the health industry...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: bobad
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:48 AM

Dems to GOP: Don't like government health care? Then drop yours

By Sahil Kapur

Congressional Democratic and liberal groups are issuing a simple ultimatum to their Republican colleagues: If you dislike government-run health insurance so much, prove it and decline the coverage provided to you.

"Put up or sit down," said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) to Republicans, who promise to repeal the sweeping health care law enacted in March. The congressman has introduced a bill to repeal the measure's most popular components, such as the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing illnesses.

"This will be the big chance for Republicans to do what they've vowed to do," Ackerman said, according to Mike Lillis of The Hill. "These bills will be their chance to at long last restore liberty and repeal the evil monster they've dubbed 'Obamacare.' "

Another New York Democrat, Joseph Crowley, on Tuesday sent a letter to Republican leaders challenging them to "walk the walk" if they intend to "deny millions of Americans affordable health care."

"You cannot enroll in the very kind of coverage that you want for yourselves, and then turn around and deny it to Americans who don't happen to be Members of Congress," the letter read.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/dems-gop-government-health-care-drop/