BS: US Health Care Reform

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:06 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: GUEST, heric
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:17 PM

here at page 1,657

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: DougR
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM

Time will tell I suppose.

DougR

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:03 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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).