BS: US Health Care Reform

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 02:08 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 08:08 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: 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 - 05:10 PM

It's evil.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:44 PM

That's two votes for T. R. Reid. Thanks you guys.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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)