Supporters of Obamacare

[BanginJimmy]

Simple question.

How will Obamacare lower costs to private insurers and their customers?

[eraser4g63]

It will by running them out of business in the long run, and then they wont have to pay those big scary insurance payments.....

[David88vert]

Simple question.

How will Obamacare lower costs to private insurers and their customers?

That's a question that Congress cannot answer, so you expect IA to?

[tony]

You two are pretty smart so I would assume you understand the initiative under a Public Option is not to benefit private insurers. Simple competition, get basic coverage or pay more for extensive coverage.. at the end of the day what matters under a public option is that everyone is able to obtain the health coverage that they need, cost of plans that benefit private insurers is hardly a priority. Sorry.

[dorin48]

I'm sure eraser4g63 and BanginJimmy are not against a public option.

The problem is the plan itself, not the idea of a plan.

This one demands too much and provides too little. Its going to be impossible to fund. The literature makes it quite clear that private insurance will die quickly and we will all be left with one option.

[tony]

This discussion is forever intriguing, in funding the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq the funds are justified, but healthcare for our own citizens and its impossible to fund. Do those of you against healthcare realize that we provide FREE health care for Iraqi and Afghan citizens but it is a problem to provide the same service for our own? Again.. intriguing.

[dorin48]

This discussion is forever intriguing, in funding the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq the funds are justified, but healthcare for our own citizens and its impossible to fund. Do those of you against healthcare realize that we provide FREE health care for Iraqi and Afghan citizens but it is a problem to provide the same service for our own? Again.. intriguing.

I must have missed the part about Iraq in this thread. Don't make assumptions about peripheral topics.

I think I've made it clear in all my posts that I am not against my fellow man or social programs. I just want them executed correctly with minimal waste.

I never said I agreed with any of those things.

Free healthcare for Iraqi and Afghan citizens is an obvious by-product of us waging war in their country.

[tony]

It is very much relevant, everyone has their opinion on how Universal Healthcare should be executed but at the end of the day all we can do is put our trust in the officials that we have elected. Personally, I think we should have a single payer system but as long as those who do not access to proper coverage are able to obtain it..I am satisfied.

[MachNU]

Because companys, small and mid sized, will just pass there cost onto the customers....the customers that are either jobless, or having alot less hours equaling less pay. Meaning penny pinching...meaning if a company raises its cost to pay for the cost it incurs without laying someone off, means higher prices for the products.

Basically watching the news last night and they asked this same question. One guy they brought onto the show was the owner of a bakery, a very large bakery, with about 30 employee's said...best example...

"If we have a sheet cake that is better than the rest in our area for $20. We pass the cost onto the customer bringing the price up to $23. Whats to say that, that once customer doesnt go down the block to Wal-Mart/Kroger/Public/etc and get the same style cake, not near as good for $14? Just because they are already spending slightly more for a better product, but just dont want to spend even a bit more for the same thing?"

[BanginJimmy]

You two are pretty smart so I would assume you understand the initiative under a Public Option is not to benefit private insurers.

We all know that. It is designed to bankrupt private insurers.



Simple competition, get basic coverage or pay more for extensive coverage..

You mean everyone but congress has to pay more for a better than basic plan. This does include a tax on better than basic plans also.


at the end of the day what matters under a public option is that everyone is able to obtain the health coverage that they need, cost of plans that benefit private insurers is hardly a priority. Sorry.


We all know this is the first step to the single payer system dems knew they couldnt force through congress on its own merits. Anyone with at least a 4th grade education can figure that out.


Back to your original misguided point though. Obama has said on numerous occasions that he wants to nationalize healthcare to bring down everyone's health insurance costs. So now that you dodged the question the first time. I'll ask you again. Name ANYTHING in this bill that will bring down costs to anyone.

[zspeed24]

at the end of the day what matters under a public option is that everyone is able to obtain the health coverage that they need. Sorry.


Anyone can obtain insurance under the current system. It just depends on if you want to pay for it or not.

[Ziptied]

To the thread title. Those in favor should be shot in the face. /thread.

[Total_Blender]

To the thread title. Those in favor should be shot in the face. /thread.

You shoot yourself in the face first, bro. As an example to show us liberal retards how it's done. :goodjob:

[tony]

Anyone can obtain insurance under the current system. It just depends on if you can pay for it or not.

fixed

[BanginJimmy]

I love how this thread has gotten absolutely zero relevant responses. I have no choice to believe that this is because there is nothing in the bill that will do anything to reduce costs for anyone.

[tony]

The relevant response was that the bill was not created to benefit private insurers, plain and simple. You're not going to get the answer you're looking for because it doesn't exist.

[TSiFTW]

The relevant response was that the bill was not created to benefit private insurers, plain and simple. You're not going to get the answer you're looking for because it doesn't exist.

So what you're saying is that they don't give two shits about the private insurers, which will in turn put them out of business giving us no choice and taking away another freedom. Thank you for your response. You just confirmed what everyone already knew abut the dems goals.

[tony]

So what you're saying is that they don't give two shits about the private insurers, which will in turn put them out of business giving us no choice and taking away another freedom. Thank you for your response. You just confirmed what everyone already knew abut the dems goals.

You have the freedom to pay for it, but I'm sure most people will go for the cheaper option. And I'm not a Dem, I just can't identify with the new Republican party.

[TSiFTW]

But if there are few to no private insurers left in business does that still give us options? I also do not relate to a true right wing view. I swing a bit right however because I disagree with pretty much all left wing views, with the exception of a few.

[tony]

But if there are few to no private insurers left in business does that still give us options? I also do not relate to a true right wing view. I swing a bit right however because I disagree with pretty much all left wing views, with the exception of a few.

Has the USPS put UPS and FedEx out of business? We all know the lesser quality that the USPS has but if you're cash strapped they get the job done.. the initiative is to get citizens who cannot afford health coverage to have it, not to line the profit margins of insurance companies.

[TSiFTW]

Now finally we are to the original question. What will happen to the prices of private insurance once more people choose the cheaper and less people are getting better quality private? Of course it will go up. Which in turn will led to more and more people who can't afford private, which will in turn lead to even higher prices, leading to less customers till finally bankruptcy on their part. Unless they want to spend more tax money to bail them out again.:rolleyes: So I hope that helps with a legitimate answer to your question Jimmy.

[tony]

I don't see how you figure private insurance rates will rise? Competition brings prices lower, not raise them. For private insurance to raise rates would be shooting their selves in the foot, and if they go out of business they would have their selves to blame.

Competition = Lower Prices.. elementary economics.

[zspeed24]

No private business can compete with a government ran business that is why it is supposed to be unconstitutional for government to OWN or RUN businesses. Hence why i think it was wrong to bailout ANY private companies.

[dorin48]

Has the USPS put UPS and FedEx out of business? We all know the lesser quality that the USPS has but if you're cash strapped they get the job done.. the initiative is to get citizens who cannot afford health coverage to have it, not to line the profit margins of insurance companies.

Its not the rate hikes that will do it. The bill itself has lit. that kills off private insurance.

This right here prevents insurers from getting new customers, and their current ones drop off if they change jobs.

Good ole' page 16.
http://sandrarose.com/images7/obamacare-pg16.jpg

Basically after a certain date (Y1) you can only buy Obamacare.

[TSiFTW]

I don't see how you figure private insurance rates will rise? Competition brings prices lower, not raise them. For private insurance to raise rates would be shooting their selves in the foot, and if they go out of business they would have their selves to blame.

Competition = Lower Prices.. elementary economics.

Finally. Hahahaha. Then why are premiums on the rise as less people can afford them. You don't think there is already competition in the insurance business. Simple economics don't always apply. As in this case. If simple economics always applied the govt wouldn't need advisors and professionals. Look at history. If less people enroll in your insurance plans, you have less money coming in. Well to keep the quality of service up you can't make severe cuts. To not make severe cuts you have to raise, not lower prices. You have to add more stipulations to your coverage, making it harder to actually get coverage, so you don't have to pay out too much. Insurance is not retail business. It does not work the same. You can't just lower your prices and expect everything to get better. If they lower their prices they may get more clients. More clients equals more payouts. More payouts plus less money equals crappier service. Crappier service equals less clients. Less clients plus less money equals bankrupt.

[S2KJD]

what will be real cool is when hospital salaries go down b/c of this...

i love less money so im happy :no:

[tony]

Insurance is not retail business.

Exactly why nobody cares about the future of private insurance, healthcare is not meant for profit.. you just said it yourself.

[TSiFTW]

Exactly why nobody cares about the future of private insurance, healthcare is not meant for profit.. you just said it yourself.

From an economics standpoint it does not work the same, no. You don't think the government will profit from healthcare? Hahahahaha. They have simply made the bill so large that they have pulled the wool over everyones eyes. You nor I nor anyone else but the insiders truly know what this bill encompasses. It would take years for all the questions to be asked for everyone to truly understand it, which is why they are trying to push it through. That is what it all boils down to. There is no sense in debating things that none of us know all the details. The damn people in Washington voting on it don't even truly know every detail of it. It is damn wool, and it is over our eyes.

[MachNU]

One thing alot of you are missing is like someone stated. This is going to lower the cost of doctors, nurses, and all those other medical people. Which will in turn, make some turn to private healthcare facilities. Hospitials and Clinics will see a HUGE increase in people coming in. Meaning most people will have there wait times double and triple. I mean if your sick one day you will need to make a appointment a few days out just to see the doctor. This will in turn, bring about TONS of private facilities. So one way or another this is going to kill either the public side, excluding hospitals, or the private side. Which in turn will force people to one area that they dont want to be, on top of kill alot of jobs.

[BanginJimmy]

Tony, since you have so much faith in the govt, why don't you name 1 govt progamof this type that actually works and is self sufficient. Social security is out. Congress bankrupted that. The same is true of medicare and medicaid. Post office is out. They require mnassive govt funding to stay afloat. That is on top of more than doubling the price of a stamp in the last 15 years or so.

[tony]

We've had that discussion before of government programs and we established that if they didn't amount to your standards they were useless. My standards are do they meet the needs of the people and there are many programs, Veterans benefits, Department of Defense, Center for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency.. all of these work because on some level they meet the needs of the people. Government is viable, healthcare is not meant to be a highly profitable industry.. society benefits from affordable healthcare, not private corporations.

[bu villain]

Is the government option actually going to compete with the insurance companies on all levels (e.g., "cadillac" plans). I was under the impression the government was only going to offer more basic coverage. Wouldn't that allow private insurance companies to still remain in business by providing more customized and more extensive plans no matter what price the government charged? Additionally, surely private companies can beat out the government on customer service right, doesn't that matter as well? Do people think the quality of private and public insurance will be the same? GM (government subsidized) doesn't put BMW out of business, what's different about this?

[BanginJimmy]

Exactly why nobody cares about the future of private insurance, healthcare is not meant for profit.. you just said it yourself.

According to you, what industries should be allowed to make a profit?


ALL businesses are started to make a profit. It doesnt matter if they are going to manufacture a product, sell a product, or provide a service.

[BanginJimmy]

We've had that discussion before of government programs and we established that if they didn't amount to your standards they were useless.

My standards are pretty easy. Do they provide a service that the private sector is not capable of providing? Are they run efficiently? Does the govt do eveything in their power to prevent fraud and waste?




My standards are do they meet the needs of the people and there are many programs,

OK


Veterans benefits,

You obviously havent delt with the VA before. If you think a private insurer will try to screw you, you aint seen nothing yet.


Department of Defense,

A private company cannot possibly provide this service on the scale that is required and you know it. I might add that the DoD is so wrought with fraud, waste and corruption you would think it is the Illinois Gov Mansion. This is especially true of the contracting and acquisitions programs.



Center for Disease Control,

This is more of a clearing house for info and research. They dont provide a direct service to anyone outside of emergencies.


Environmental Protection Agency..

Nothing more than another govt regulatory body. They have little to nothing to do with private citizens outside of the abstract.



all of these work because on some level they meet the needs of the people.

On some level the garbage man meets the needs of the people. Should that be nationalized also? Same with grocery stores, and home improvement stores. I guess Home Depot and Kroger should be worried huh?



Government is viable, healthcare is not meant to be a highly profitable industry..

Its not a highly profitable industry. Industry wide, he profit margin ranks #86.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html




society benefits from affordable healthcare, not private corporations.

So you are telling me that private sector jobs dont benefit society? I guess you mean that only govt provides jobs that benefit society? You might want to ask any laid off GM worker how he feels about that. I'm sure he would have a slightly different opinion.

Again I will ask,what provisions of the House bill will lower costs? Its a simple question and it should be a simple answer to anyone that supports this bill.

[RedEj8]

Something else I find intriguing is that hospitals must provide free health care to illegal immigrants in the US. Congress sets aside $1,000,000,000/year to cover this cost to the hospitals but it doesn't even begin to cover their costs..

Any program the government creates is not to provide competition.. It's to run everyone else out of business so as to make the gov. the sole provider of that service..Which will make everyone more dependent on Washington...If health care reform as imagined by the Democrats becomes law, you can forget any prospect of a shrinking tax burden, because every cent will be dedicated to feeding the ever-growing health-care entitlement maw.

Everyone seems to be stuck on the fact that their beliefs (Dem. or Rep.) are to defeat the other party..Which is retarded in my book. Oh yea, lets create something just to make the other party rant and rave about it just so we can lol at them while they're squirming.... WTF?

[tony]

According to you, what industries should be allowed to make a profit?


ALL businesses are started to make a profit. It doesnt matter if they are going to manufacture a product, sell a product, or provide a service.

Ones that don't profit off of the fundamental needs of citizens, you want to make education a for profit sector too?

[zspeed24]

Ones that don't profit off of the fundamental needs of citizens, you want to make education a for profit sector too?

So no grocery stores, auto makers, gas companies, utilities, clothing companies, appliance makers, any medical, did i leave anything out. Come on Tony why would people go into business if not to make a profit. I would think you of all people, being someone who trades, would understand this. Not trying to be an ass just don't see where you are coming from.:thinking:

[tony]

So no grocery stores, auto makers, gas companies, utilities, clothing companies, appliance makers, any medical, did i leave anything out. Come on Tony why would people go into business if not to make a profit. I would think you of all people, being someone who trades, would understand this. Not trying to be an ass just don't see where you are coming from.:thinking:

Fundamental needs, as in police protection.. education. Your local water authority is usually funded by the local government, environmental protection, defense. None of this stuff is privatized for a reason, even welfare is needed so when I say fundamental needs I mean the stuff that all citizens struggle to maintain theirselves.

[BanginJimmy]

Fundamental needs, as in police protection.. education. Your local water authority is usually funded by the local government, environmental protection, defense. None of this stuff is privatized for a reason, even welfare is needed so when I say fundamental needs I mean the stuff that all citizens struggle to maintain theirselves.


Health insurance isnt a need, its a product, just like a tooth brush or a couch. Anyone can go to any hospital any time for health care and because of previous legislation they cannot be denied care for any reason.

[Ziptied]

Name me ONE government agency that is well run. You cant, so I most assuredly don't want them messing with health care. My tax dollars shouldn't pay for illegal immigrants.

[Total_Blender]

Name me ONE government agency that is well run. You cant, so I most assuredly don't want them messing with health care. My tax dollars shouldn't pay for illegal immigrants.

:blah:

What is your idea of a "well run organizataion"? You can't just ask something like that without defining parameters.

As far as illegal immigrants go, you also support them when you buy products made with illegal labor, or use services the use illegal labor. So you should probably just stop spending money all together to make sure none of it ends up in the hands of illegals. Just convert your money to Gold and keep it under your bed. I think thats what Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, and all the other right wing commentators are telling people to do now anyway, right?

:lmfao:

[BanginJimmy]

Blender, since Tony has been unable to answer the simple question in my original post maybe you will try.

What provision of the house bill will actually lower costs for the insurers and therefore their customers?

[Danny]

Has the USPS put UPS and FedEx out of business? We all know the lesser quality that the USPS has but if you're cash strapped they get the job done.. the initiative is to get citizens who cannot afford health coverage to have it, not to line the profit margins of insurance companies.

Hmm i was under the impression the USPS is not supposed to be subsidized, trying to dig out how exactly they are funded now..hmm

[BanginJimmy]

Seems that a little more info on the Pelosi bill is coming out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/14/house-democrats-botched-health-care-republican-says/

[Total_Blender]

Seems that a little more info on the Pelosi bill is coming out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/14/house-democrats-botched-health-care-republican-says/

404 news not found :D

[tony]

On a lighter note, even through our political differences can I just say when it comes to Sarah Palin.. i would hit it without shame. Our differences would probably inspire me to hit it harder.

To be honest guys for some reason I just can't care about politics right now, everyone (even politicians.. yes Obama too) is going to do what is in their own interest and the 2 party system fucks up the process that much more. I consider myself Conservative but the current definition of it as well as the Republican stance on social issues doesn't allow me to align myself with them.

I hear the liberal side of things but you hardly hear that side preach about personal responsibility. The government cannot function as a sole entity for a disproportionate amount of responsibility in society, citizens are the driving force behind government and the more initiative the citizens have the more efficient government can be.

Both are pipe dreams so its whatever, my focus is to put myself in the best position to be successful and help out those in need.. whether it be educating them on the issues, donation of money, time, or even my service in the military. Everything else is a waste of time right now.

[bu villain]

Simple question.

How will Obamacare lower costs to private insurers and their customers?

I'm not sure what your definition of Obamacare is but I'll assume it's anything with a government option. Ill play devil's advocate and give you three answers since I don't see anyone else trying to answer it:

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

[BanginJimmy]

I consider myself Conservative but the current definition of it as well as the Republican stance on social issues doesn't allow me to align myself with them.

After reading a great many of your posts on here I find it hard to believe you are anything but a hard leftist or worse. Nothing you have said in ANY thread points to conservatism.


I hear the liberal side of things but you hardly hear that side preach about personal responsibility.

Liberals are completely against any kind of person responsibility. Liberals want total govt control over everything.

[RedEj8]

45 million people without health insurance.

1/5 of them aren't even American
1/5 don't have health insurance but are covered by medicare
2/5 don't have heath insurance but also don't have home or life insurance. They are 23 and too healthy and busy to worry about health insurance.
1/5 are wealthy and don't have health insurance because they don't need it.

[tony]

After reading a great many of your posts on here I find it hard to believe you are anything but a hard leftist or worse. Nothing you have said in ANY thread points to conservatism.



Liberals are completely against any kind of person responsibility. Liberals want total govt control over everything.

Hey thats your opinion and you're entitled to that. Conservative does not equal purely capitalist though, I think what you're referring to is this misconstrued definition of Conservative aka Neo Conservatism.. where people like Sean Hannity or Limbaugh take the spotlight rather than those who understand and respect the core values. Lincoln created the Republican party, do you think if he was alive today he could say it is the same party he created? Doubt it, because it was started as very much a social movement as it was a Capitalist one. I tend to laugh at the state of the right wing today, when Sarah Palin is a viable candidate is says volume about where that party is headed.

[Total_Blender]

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

I don't quite understand all I know about this one... most insurance companies employers have to choose from are already national, correct? We have a choice between Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross/Blue Shield where I work. I assume they have those insurers in all 49 other states too. So is there not competition in the system already :screwy:

I am sure there are probably smaller independents who operate on a regional basis, but I don't see what they would add to competition... its kinda like saying you're going to defeat Wal-Mart with your local chain of Mom & Pop stores.



2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

I've been saying this all along. Catching diseases like cancer early will do a lot to reduce costs. "23 and too busy to worry about health care" will eventually become "35 and denied for pre-existing condition".



3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

I agree with this, a public option will get all of those who just aren't working with private insurance out of private insurance, leaving the customers who are dedicated to it. Private insurance will lose a lot of the hard cases and be able to streamline.

[stretch]

You two are pretty smart so I would assume you understand the initiative under a Public Option is not to benefit private insurers. Simple competition, get basic coverage or pay more for extensive coverage.. at the end of the day what matters under a public option is that everyone is able to obtain the health coverage that they need, cost of plans that benefit private insurers is hardly a priority. Sorry.

i couldnt have said it better myself..:goodjob:

[zspeed24]

I don't quite understand all I know about this one... most insurance companies employers have to choose from are already national, correct? We have a choice between Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross/Blue Shield where I work. I assume they have those insurers in all 49 other states too. So is there not competition in the system already :screwy:


My wife's company is based out of SC and her employer offers Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, the plan to cover her and my son was 530 a month for the exact same plan with blue cross blue shield of Georgia it costs us 319 a month for all three of us, but people who live in SC cannot buy insurance with BCBS GA on an individual basis. This is why conservatives want it open to buy across state lines.

[Total_Blender]

My wife's company is based out of SC and her employer offers Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, the plan to cover her and my son was 530 a month for the exact same plan with blue cross blue shield of Georgia it costs us 319 a month for all three of us, but people who live in SC cannot buy insurance with BCBS GA on an individual basis. This is why conservatives want it open to buy across state lines.

I would imagine the difference in cost might have something to do with the statutes governing healthcare being different between the two states though, the demographics being different between the two areas, etc etc.

If I run a life insurance company out of Minneapolis, MN... I might have different criteria and a different system of rating customers than if I ran a life insurance company out of Baltimore or Detroit. Allowing insurance companies to do business across state lines might work well to reduce costs to some consumers, but in practice I imagine most insurers would want to stick to their bases and not take on added risk.

Also, Blue Cross, Kaiser and the other giants would probably just centralize their structure (no need for the overhead of 50 branches when one will do the job).:2cents:

[bu villain]

Keep in mind too that in the real world the market doesn't behave exactly as in theory. If there are only a handful of choices, its much easier to keep prices higher than they really would be in a perfect market. The government could potentially break up and such unspoken collusion by setting prices closer to perfect market value. Now I'm not sure I trust them to do that but its possible in theory.

[BanginJimmy]

Hey thats your opinion and you're entitled to that. Conservative does not equal purely capitalist though, I think what you're referring to is this misconstrued definition of Conservative aka Neo Conservatism.. where people like Sean Hannity or Limbaugh take the spotlight rather than those who understand and respect the core values. Lincoln created the Republican party, do you think if he was alive today he could say it is the same party he created? Doubt it, because it was started as very much a social movement as it was a Capitalist one. I tend to laugh at the state of the right wing today, when Sarah Palin is a viable candidate is says volume about where that party is headed.


I'm very much conservative on economic issues, but not social issues, and I agree completely in substance to what you are saying. Republicans are not longer synonymous with conservative though. Conservatives SHOULD be for these things:

1. Small govt in general, but especially federal govt. Power should be carried by the states in any case that doesnt directly affect another state.

2. Low taxes. Smaller govt needs less money to operate.

3. Minimal govt interference in private business. This is pretty much the antithesis of what both sides of the aisle have done for the last 30+ years with VERY few exceptions.

4. Strong national security and border protection. Again, the antithesis of what the govt is actually doing.

5. Strong separation of church and state. Christians especially should be knowledgeable of the evils of church and state being too close. That is not to say that we should go overboard like liberals are and pretty much eliminating religion from public forums.

The current crop of so called conservatives and liberals are simply trying to act like they want to be as far from th other on political issues. Liberals have a clear view as to where they want to go, conservatives still dont as proven by the republican nomination in NY 23.

[Total_Blender]

5. Strong separation of church and state. Christians especially should be knowledgeable of the evils of church and state being too close. That is not to say that we should go overboard like liberals are and pretty much eliminating religion from public forums.
.

We agree on something, at least. :goodjob:

[preferredduck]

I'm sure eraser4g63 and BanginJimmy are not against a public option.

The problem is the plan itself, not the idea of a plan.

This one demands too much and provides too little. Its going to be impossible to fund. The literature makes it quite clear that private insurance will die quickly and we will all be left with one option.

there is too much money made in the insurance industry and they have funded like 75% of congress and prob put out a healthy contribution to obama, so they wont die they will wind up underwritting the claims and handle all the things they already do for medicare and medicaid. i worked in hospital billing and collections so i know the game very well and i "insure" you that the insurance companies have thier hands in the cookie jar and prob have for a while now.

Insurance reform is all it is not healthcare reform, so what if you cannot afford the public option, do you get fined or go to jail like they say. i have a feeling this is going to get messy fast.

[preferredduck]

The sad part is the system is soooo crappy that none of our beloved elected officials will have any of our health plans. They will all stay under the "better than the best" policy that they have now, never pay a premium, wait 6 mos for an MRI, or any of that. I say if we have to follow the insurance reform guidelines then so should obamamama and congress etc. get my point people.

[Total_Blender]

. I say if we have to follow the insurance reform guidelines then so should obamamama and congress etc. get my point people.



Congressmen are pretty loaded across the board, I think the poorest person in Congress (which used to be Joe Biden until he became VP) is still worth a couple million. With that kind of money you could just pay out of pocket. Also, most congressmen are vets so they would still have the VA. So its naive to think that requiring them to have the same public healthcare plan as everyone else would potentially effect the outcome. :2cents:

[BanginJimmy]

Congressmen are pretty loaded across the board, I think the poorest person in Congress (which used to be Joe Biden until he became VP) is still worth a couple million. With that kind of money you could just pay out of pocket. Also, most congressmen are vets so they would still have the VA. So its naive to think that requiring them to have the same public healthcare plan as everyone else would potentially effect the outcome. :2cents:



Actually the congressional plan is better than anything that most of us on here will ever get the opportunity to have, and its free to them. There was also an attempt by Phil Gingrey and a couple others to add an amendment to the House bill that would require congress to use the public option if it passed. Pelosi wouldnt let it come to a vote.

[BanginJimmy]

Bumping this up again to see if we will see a real answer. For all of you supporters out there, this should be a very simple question to answer. Dont try hiding, just answer. If you want to admit you are a socialist and you want a single payer system, then say that. It will show the true colors of Obama's supporters.

[MachNU]

Bumping this up again to see if we will see a real answer. For all of you supporters out there, this should be a very simple question to answer. Dont try hiding, just answer. If you want to admit you are a socialist and you want other things for free, then say that. It will show the true colors of Obama's supporters.

Fixed it for ya! :goodjob:

[BanginJimmy]

Since we have another new health care bill, I will bump this up again.


Simple question for the supporters. Name a single provision of the bill that will lower costs for your average health care consumer.

[Jaimecbr900]

I'm just subscribing cause I can.....:D;)


BTW, some of you guys don't understand how health INSURANCE (go look up the definition of that btw) works, i.e. the difference between a group plan, an individual plan, or a private plan. Until you do, you will keep believing what Pelosi wants you to believe because you're not smart enough to ask your employer the difference before you signed on that nifty dotted line when you got a job. :rolleyes:

I could go on and on, but I'm not gonna right now. Jimmy and TRSW are handling things in this debate quite well anyway. :goodjob:

[BanginJimmy]

I'm just subscribing cause I can.....:D;)


BTW, some of you guys don't understand how health INSURANCE (go look up the definition of that btw) works, i.e. the difference between a group plan, an individual plan, or a private plan. Until you do, you will keep believing what Pelosi wants you to believe because you're not smart enough to ask your employer the difference before you signed on that nifty dotted line when you got a job. :rolleyes:

I could go on and on, but I'm not gonna right now. Jimmy and TRSW are handling things in this debate quite well anyway. :goodjob:

If you took the time to read through this thread, you will see that the liberals have used a steady stream of attacks, but to this point, not a single provision that would reduce the cost of health care.

[Jaimecbr900]

If you took the time to read through this thread, you will see that the liberals have used a steady stream of attacks, but to this point, not a single provision that would reduce the cost of health care.

Are you back talking me young man????? :ninja::D

I did read it. Shook my head quite often, but since I wasn't involved since the beginning I'd feel replying to some of the utter ignorance posted on here would be useless at this point. Know what I mean?

Even though Mr. Tony's hat is tilted over to the left quite a bit, he's a good guy IMO. I don't know the others like that, so I can't say. But Tony, even though he never agrees with me:ninja:, has always kept it civil with me through out our long winded debates in the past. I certainly don't agree with him here at all, but he's always been respectful to me before.

That said, he's still wrong......:tongue1::D

[MachNU]

Well if you removed all of Total Benders post this would actually be a much better debate. That and the level of bullshit that is in here would be much lower.

[tony]

Are you back talking me young man????? :ninja::D

I did read it. Shook my head quite often, but since I wasn't involved since the beginning I'd feel replying to some of the utter ignorance posted on here would be useless at this point. Know what I mean?

Even though Mr. Tony's hat is tilted over to the left quite a bit, he's a good guy IMO. I don't know the others like that, so I can't say. But Tony, even though he never agrees with me:ninja:, has always kept it civil with me through out our long winded debates in the past. I certainly don't agree with him here at all, but he's always been respectful to me before.

That said, he's still wrong......:tongue1::D


I think someone else put it nicely here that if we all agreed this would be a boring place. I've aligned with both sides on various topics, my closest friend is deafening liberal and we argue constantly but at the end of the day I do lean left. I will say this though, regardless of who is in office I feel the political process cancels out anyone with truly good intentions, what you are left with.. politicians.

[blurred visions]

I'm not sure what your definition of Obamacare is but I'll assume it's anything with a government option. Ill play devil's advocate and give you three answers since I don't see anyone else trying to answer it:

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

+1





If you took the time to read through this thread, you will see that the liberals have used a steady stream of attacks, but to this point, not a single provision that would reduce the cost of health care.

If you are looking for a provision, there simply isn't a provision clearly stated out. You can sit here and beat that dead horse, or you can look at bu villain's statements above, take them into account and tell me what you think. Or you can do just as you did after he posted these points, skip over them.

I've scrolled through this thread and all I can see from you BanginJimmy are stabs at liberals. Your comment about hinting to Socialism and a single-payer system speaks volumes about what outlets fill your head with talking points. It's not impressive and it is very demeaning.

[Vteckidd]

Has the USPS put UPS and FedEx out of business? We all know the lesser quality that the USPS has but if you're cash strapped they get the job done.. the initiative is to get citizens who cannot afford health coverage to have it, not to line the profit margins of insurance companies.

Usps is bankrupt , has terrible service, loses packages at a rate of 20% more than fedex and ups, etc

so no they didn't put ups or fedex out of business , but te real question is do you want healthcare system setup as well as usps?

Also the comparison is not accurate. Usps fedex and ups all have seperate equipment and transportation means. You pay for a package to be shipped by usps it gets shipped by usps employees. You don't pay usps prices and get fedex service.

Conversly, insurance works the opposite. "dr smith" accepts aetna, blue cross blue shield, kaiser etc. Now he will accept the govt pool aka govt option. He will have to. So now you will pay "usps" prices for the same level of care private insurers offer. That will put them out of business. So you'll have a few effects

1) massive layoffs and unemployment from those companies gping under
2) doctors being reimbursed less for their work meaning less pay to doctors
3) 20-30 million people getting healthcare from a system run as well as usps
4) the govt doesn't need to make a DIME. They can operate 11 trillion in the hole so no private company will be able to compete
5) 30 million new patients with an already short medical staff means longer wait times to get care
6) costs will continue to rise as this bill does nothing to address the COST issues , it only provides access by spending another trillion-2 trillion dollars

I've always said this "you will have healthcare at the cost of higher taxes and lack of a job"

expect inflation to wipe out any govt entitlement Obama passes as he spends us into oblivion.good luck America

[David88vert]

Usps is bankrupt , has terrible service, loses packages at a rate of 20% more than fedex and ups, etc

so no they didn't put ups or fedex out of business , but te real question is do you want healthcare system setup as well as usps?

Also the comparison is not accurate. Usps fedex and ups all have seperate equipment and transportation means. You pay for a package to be shipped by usps it gets shipped by usps employees. You don't pay usps prices and get fedex service.



Fact: USPS has posted net losses since 2007.
Fact: USPS posted a loss of $237 million for just the last quarter.
Fact: USPS projects a shprtfall of $238 billion by 2020.
Fact: USPS lost my latest paycheck, so I put through the paperwork to convert payroll to direct deposit.
Poor service equals lost customers.


Now let's look at the situation with healthcare.
Doctors are paid by insurance and Medicare for every patient they see according to why they see the patient, and what procedures they perform for the patient, and not by the amount of time they spend with the patient - patients can expect to spend no more than 10 to 16 minutes with their doctor, depending on the agreement with the insurance provider. It varies from insurance plan to insurance plan, or from Medicare or Medicaid. Bottom line - doctors are paid for the number of patients and number of procedures, and not how much time any of those take, there is a real incentive for the doctor to spend as little time as possible with each patient.
Now if Obama limits the amount allowed for procedures, what will doctors have to do?
Lower their standard of living? Drop their expensive malpractice insurance? Not pay back their massive student loans? Work more hours? No, they won't.
Time is constant. There are only 24 hours in a day. In order to make up for the lowered income, they will either have to cut expenses by firing employees (not an option with small offices), or will have to increase the amount of patients seen during the same amount of time. That means that they will spend even less time reviewing your records before prescribing you a "magic pill" - or worse, a procedure that you don't need, but pays a higher rate to them. This is generally considered a lowering of standards and quality. Is that what you want for your children's health -to lower the quality of care?

"In the United States, only about a third of our doctors are primary care and we've been seeing lately that there's actually been a growing disinterest in this field for many of our U.S. medical graduates. So we have created incentives in part through higher salary to specialists. We have many more of our students going into specialty care" - Dr. Andrew Bindman of the University of California, San Francisco

[Jaimecbr900]

Fact: USPS has posted net losses since 2007.
Fact: USPS posted a loss of $237 million for just the last quarter.
Fact: USPS projects a shprtfall of $238 billion by 2020.
Fact: USPS lost my latest paycheck, so I put through the paperwork to convert payroll to direct deposit.
Poor service equals lost customers.


Now let's look at the situation with healthcare.
Doctors are paid by insurance and Medicare for every patient they see according to why they see the patient, and what procedures they perform for the patient, and not by the amount of time they spend with the patient - patients can expect to spend no more than 10 to 16 minutes with their doctor, depending on the agreement with the insurance provider. It varies from insurance plan to insurance plan, or from Medicare or Medicaid. Bottom line - doctors are paid for the number of patients and number of procedures, and not how much time any of those take, there is a real incentive for the doctor to spend as little time as possible with each patient.
Now if Obama limits the amount allowed for procedures, what will doctors have to do?
Lower their standard of living? Drop their expensive malpractice insurance? Not pay back their massive student loans? Work more hours? No, they won't.
Time is constant. There are only 24 hours in a day. In order to make up for the lowered income, they will either have to cut expenses by firing employees (not an option with small offices), or will have to increase the amount of patients seen during the same amount of time. That means that they will spend even less time reviewing your records before prescribing you a "magic pill" - or worse, a procedure that you don't need, but pays a higher rate to them. This is generally considered a lowering of standards and quality. Is that what you want for your children's health -to lower the quality of care?

"In the United States, only about a third of our doctors are primary care and we've been seeing lately that there's actually been a growing disinterest in this field for many of our U.S. medical graduates. So we have created incentives in part through higher salary to specialists. We have many more of our students going into specialty care" - Dr. Andrew Bindman of the University of California, San Francisco


+1 million. :goodjob:

[BanginJimmy]

If you are looking for a provision, there simply isn't a provision clearly stated out. You can sit here and beat that dead horse, or you can look at bu villain's statements above, take them into account and tell me what you think. Or you can do just as you did after he posted these points, skip over them.

I didn't purposely skip over those comments as they are the only halfway intelligent posts by a liberal in this thread. I simply missed them and I will comment on them when I get to a computer.


I've scrolled through this thread and all I can see from you BanginJimmy are stabs at liberals. Your comment about hinting to Socialism and a single-payer system speaks volumes about what outlets fill your head with talking points. It's not impressive and it is very demeaning.

Obama has personally said he prefers a single payer so I see no reason to believe this horrible bill is nothintg more than a first step towards it.

Yes, I do take a lot of stabs at liberals, but not nearly as many attacks by liberals againt me or any other conservative.

I would love to hear what talking points are filling my head. The only ones I can think of are the common sense ones. I can see that Reid, Obama, Pelosi and MSNBC have you throughly corrputed, without offering a single realistic detail. You will simply follow the liberal/Obama line no matter what they say.

Who is it demeaning to? The people that faint at the sight of Obama? The people that take anything he says at face value then come back and say anything that GOP says is nothing more than rhetoric and lies? The people that ignore the fact that Obama is a hero to groups kike the Weather Underground and the NBPP? Those same people that ignore his ties to people like Dorn, Wright, Ayers, and Jones?

[David88vert]

+1 million. :goodjob:

CNN Money has an article on this today, written about Medicare payments about to be lowered, and how it affects primary care physicians.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news/economy/medicare_doctor_costs/index.htm

[Vteckidd]

I think it still goes back to people do not understand the issues and their consequences. Everyonehas tunnel vision they see "free healthcare" or "affordable healthcare" and wrongfully assume it will positively effect them. They think the standard of care given today will apply tomorrow after they kick out the evil insurance companies.

This issue is so overloaded with half truths and outright lies I'm surprised there isn't
more backlash against it.

[blurred visions]

I didn't purposely skip over those comments as they are the only halfway intelligent posts by a liberal in this thread. I simply missed them and I will comment on them when I get to a computer.

Of course, they are halfway intelligent because they are from a liberal. Liberal = Halfway intelligent. BanginJimmy = Fox Republican.



Obama has personally said he prefers a single payer so I see no reason to believe this horrible bill is nothintg more than a first step towards it.

Is this you or Glenn Beck talking?



Yes, I do take a lot of stabs at liberals, but not nearly as many attacks by liberals againt me or any other conservative.

You may be confusing stabs with constructive criticism. It's all about how you perceive it. For the most part, my criticism towards Conservatives is mostly because I'm recognizing problems that they may need to consider.



I would love to hear what talking points are filling my head. The only ones I can think of are the common sense ones. I can see that Reid, Obama, Pelosi and MSNBC have you throughly corrputed, without offering a single realistic detail. You will simply follow the liberal/Obama line no matter what they say.

This is exactly the Fox Conservative Republican mindset! "The common sense ones" is clearly your conservative nature. You never want to be wrong and you will most likely never take in opposing parties propositions. As I have said in another thread, I am not for a party, I vote based on who needs to be in office. I never watch MSNBC, just various worthy clips on youtube (on occasion). You Fox viewers believe that "the other team" is glued to MSNBC and building up their separate hatred towards Republicans.



Who is it demeaning to? The people that faint at the sight of Obama? The people that take anything he says at face value then come back and say anything that GOP says is nothing more than rhetoric and lies? The people that ignore the fact that Obama is a hero to groups kike the Weather Underground and the NBPP? Those same people that ignore his ties to people like Dorn, Wright, Ayers, and Jones?

Wow, if I wouldn't have known any better I would have thought that was straight from O'Reilly himself. Unless you go to Fox rehab, you will never really know how you are representing your party and yourself.

[Vteckidd]

The common liberal response is to blame a conservatives view on propaganda or that we are too stupid to make up our own minds.

This breed blames fox news or oreilly or beck. Oreilly is the most middle of the road reporter on tv today. But I suppose I think that cause im to dumb to know any better.

You can't argue the issues you can only blame why we think the way we do to make your views make sense in your head.

[Ziptied]

I think it's retarded, I lose because I can actually afford health insurance. Thanks Obama, you lying secretive bastard.

[BanginJimmy]

Of course, they are halfway intelligent because they are from a liberal. Liberal = Halfway intelligent. BanginJimmy = Fox Republican.

Actually not a republican, but I am a fiscal conservative.




Is this you or Glenn Beck talking?

Actually it is Obama speaking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=player_embedded


You may be confusing stabs with constructive criticism. It's all about how you perceive it. For the most part, my criticism towards Conservatives is mostly because I'm recognizing problems that they may need to consider.

I didnt say anyone particular, but if the shoe fits.




This is exactly the Fox Conservative Republican mindset! "The common sense ones" is clearly your conservative nature. You never want to be wrong and you will most likely never take in opposing parties propositions. As I have said in another thread, I am not for a party, I vote based on who needs to be in office. I never watch MSNBC, just various worthy clips on youtube (on occasion). You Fox viewers believe that "the other team" is glued to MSNBC and building up their separate hatred towards Republicans.

Common sense tells me that if you raise taxes on insurance companies, my premiums and/or co-pays go up. Common sense tells me that if the fed govt tells you it is going to cost 900B, it is really going to cost 3 or 4 or 5T.

I dont mind being wrong if I am proven wrong, that simply means I didnt look hard enough for the right answers. Its a learning experience for me. What I wont do is say I am wrong without something to prove I am wrong.


I never watch MSNBC, just various worthy clips on youtube (on occasion). You Fox viewers believe that "the other team" is glued to MSNBC and building up their separate hatred towards Republicans.

Funny, you did the exact same thing to me with your Beck comment. BTW, I have watched Beck 2 or 3 times in my life. The guy knows what he is talking about, but his presentation annoys the piss out of me.




Wow, if I wouldn't have known any better I would have thought that was straight from O'Reilly himself. Unless you go to Fox rehab, you will never really know how you are representing your party and yourself.

Hmmm, I guess you are no different than me. Since I know you watch him, what time does Chris Mathews come on? You and him can enjoy a tingling leg together while replaying Obama speeches.

[Browning151]

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.





4) the govt doesn't need to make a DIME. They can operate 11 trillion in the hole so no private company will be able to compete


:goodjob: The govt being involved in setting prices will do nothing more than drive companies out of business and more people out of jobs. No one in Washington understands what a budget is or how to come up with one, much less follow it if they had one. They will just continue to "lower prices" and operate at a loss and add that to the deficit, something that no private company has the luxury to do. That will end in total govt control of healthcare, this is just the first step.

Has anyone listened to or read Paul Ryans comments during the "healthcare summit"? Just wondering what everyones take on that was.

[BanginJimmy]

I said I would come back to this so here we go.


1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

This isnt a fair playing field though. The Govt has no reason to return a profit. No stock holders and board to answer to.

We do agree about buying across state lines bringing in more competition though. The problem is, there isnt anything in the bill that would allow that, unless it was one of the changes Obama brought out yesterday.


2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

There is no evidence that preventative care leads to reduced costs.

Read this (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661).

The only places that prevention would surely reduce costs is in the areas of personal habits such as smoking, weight, and inactivity. The author also includes colon cancer screenings, but I dont know if cancer can be prevented by anything. Catching it early may reduce costs some but a quick google tells me that there is no real way to know how much impact it would have.


3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

This isnt true because of the mandate that an insurer MUST cover them and they cannot charge them more because of a pre-existing condition. This will lead to MANY more people being added to the books of the insurance companies and no way for them to pay for them without a drastic rise in rates for everyone.


To add a little on to this though, I am a proponent of the provision that removes coverage caps and prevents an insurer from dropping someone from coverage. The only case where I can agree is a case in which an insurance company finds out about an UNDISCLOSED condition that is directly related to the current condition. IE: Dropping someone for not disclosing being treated for high blood pressure, then has a heart attack.

[BanginJimmy]

Has anyone listened to or read Paul Ryans comments during the "healthcare summit"? Just wondering what everyones take on that was.


I've heard bits and pieces of it. I really do hope he takes more of a lead than he has to this point.

[Browning151]

I've heard bits and pieces of it. I really do hope he takes more of a lead than he has to this point.

I would also like to see him step up, so far I haven't seen anyone else step up and address things the way he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=211odCXDqz8&feature=related

I have yet to see anyone refute anything that he said.

[bu villain]

Sounds like we agree on the first point.




There is no evidence that preventative care leads to reduced costs.

Read this (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661).

The only places that prevention would surely reduce costs is in the areas of personal habits such as smoking, weight, and inactivity. The author also includes colon cancer screenings, but I dont know if cancer can be prevented by anything. Catching it early may reduce costs some but a quick google tells me that there is no real way to know how much impact it would have.

Good link. What it says is that many preventative measures ARE cost effective although many are not. If we only include those measures which have been studied to be cost effective, then that should lower costs right?



This isnt true because of the mandate that an insurer MUST cover them and they cannot charge them more because of a pre-existing condition. This will lead to MANY more people being added to the books of the insurance companies and no way for them to pay for them without a drastic rise in rates for everyone.

I agree with your analysis here but I think when I originally wrote about this issue it was assuming a government option, not government mandates on companies.



To add a little on to this though, I am a proponent of the provision that removes coverage caps and prevents an insurer from dropping someone from coverage. The only case where I can agree is a case in which an insurance company finds out about an UNDISCLOSED condition that is directly related to the current condition. IE: Dropping someone for not disclosing being treated for high blood pressure, then has a heart attack.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[BanginJimmy]

Good link. What it says is that many preventative measures ARE cost effective although many are not. If we only include those measures which have been studied to be cost effective, then that should lower costs right?

That would lower costs, but then we go back to defensive medicine. MANY tests and procedures are being done simply for a 'check in the box' as a standard test even though the docs know what the results will be ahead of time. The only reason they are doing it is so a patient cannot come back with a lawyer claiming the doc cut corners to save money. Without some form of tort reform that gives a doc greater protection against frivolous lawsuits, and therefore reduced malpractice insurance rates, reducing the number of covered tests and procedures will only result in those savings being negated by the costs of insurance.






I agree with your analysis here but I think when I originally wrote about this issue it was assuming a government option, not government mandates on companies.

The mandates were in there from the start of the process in the House and they were actually added to in the Senate by the additional tax on 'Cadillac' plans.

[BanginJimmy]

Blurred, you seem to have forgotten about this thread. Please refer back to posts 77 and 80. I will be waiting your response about Obama and the single payer system.

[Total_Blender]

If Obama's goal is single payer, then why have a mandate to buy insurance from PRIVATE companies? I remember hearing Obama's remarks on single payer (and to be honest I'm all for SP). But I don't see how adding 30 or 40 million people to the private system is gonna get us anywhere closer to a 100% public single payer system.

[Vteckidd]

Let's see if you can connect the dots

this "govt pool" he's talking about aka insurance exchange where rates will be lower and more affordable and will keep "insurance companies honest".....

Where will they get these lower cheaper rates from? How will they come up with it? Who are you buyng insurance from in the "govt pool" the govt or private insurance?

[BanginJimmy]

Let's see if you can connect the dots

this "govt pool" he's talking about aka insurance exchange where rates will be lower and more affordable and will keep "insurance companies honest".....

Where will they get these lower cheaper rates from? How will they come up with it? Who are you buyng insurance from in the "govt pool" the govt or private insurance?


I'll add onto this.

The mandates on the insurance companies will drastically raise rates for everyone. There is really no possible way for them not to rise when you consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will be added to the insurer's roles and they will not be able to charge them a proportionate amount.

To those additional costs there are the added fees and taxes that will be imposed by the bill. As we all know, corporations dont pay taxes, they simply transfer their burden to their customers. An additional tax burden, just means another rate hike.

To add to THOSE additional costs, the docs that are treating patients will need to raise their prices. This price hike will be to cover the gap between what medicare/medicaid pays and what a procedure really costs. The docs arent going to lose money to treat those patients as we all know. There may even come a time where docs quit accepting medicare/medicaid if the gap gets to be too large to cover with the raised prices on insurers.

[David88vert]

I'll add onto this.

The mandates on the insurance companies will drastically raise rates for everyone. There is really no possible way for them not to rise when you consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will be added to the insurer's roles and they will not be able to charge them a proportionate amount.

To those additional costs there are the added fees and taxes that will be imposed by the bill. As we all know, corporations dont pay taxes, they simply transfer their burden to their customers. An additional tax burden, just means another rate hike.

To add to THOSE additional costs, the docs that are treating patients will need to raise their prices. This price hike will be to cover the gap between what medicare/medicaid pays and what a procedure really costs. The docs arent going to lose money to treat those patients as we all know. There may even come a time where docs quit accepting medicare/medicaid if the gap gets to be too large to cover with the raised prices on insurers.


With a larger pool of people, the risk dispersed amongst a larger base, so you cannot just say that costs will rise. You would need some hard numbers to properly speculate on this. It is probable that the rates will rise - as they currently do - simply because the insurance companies need to show growth to their shareholders to have their stock prices increase. Nothing will change that.

Additional fees will be added on - with or without the additional people being insured by private companies - this is already happening. Taxes will rise whether or not this healthcare bill passes. That is a known issue that we will have to face.

Doctors are already refusing to take Medicare, as Medicare is reducing payments by 21% - I posted an article on this a few days ago.

[Total_Blender]

There is no evidence that preventative care leads to reduced costs.

Read this (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661).



Findings that some cost-saving or highly efficient measures are underused would indicate that current practice is inconsistent with the efficient delivery of health care. Other services might be identified as overused, and such findings would underscore the importance of fashioning policies that provide incentives to shift practice toward more cost-effective delivery of health care. In the face of increasingly constrained resources, there is a realistic way of achieving better health results: conduct careful analysis to identify evidence-based opportunities for more efficient delivery of health care — whether prevention or treatment — and then restructure the system to create incentives that encourage the appropriate delivery of efficient interventions.

You are wrong in saying that there is absolutely no evidence that prevention reduces cost. What your article says is that the evidence is mixed and that in some instances it reduces cost and in some it doesn't. The author suggests that we can identify the services of preventative care that DO work to reduce costs and employ those.

Another cost saving measure that has been proposed would be advance directives, which would save doctors and hospitals from legal troubles such as in the case of Terri Schaivo.

And theres also HR 1706, that prohibits name brand drug companies from paying the smaller drug companies for withholding the release of generic drugs.

Theres another bill that has something to do with the way prescription drugs are wholesaled... From what I heard, it will allow for more buying direct from the manufacturers. And it will also make for more accurate reporting of any discounts and incentive deals that happen between insurance companies, medicare, and big pharma.

[Total_Blender]

I'll add onto this.

The mandates on the insurance companies will drastically raise rates for everyone. There is really no possible way for them not to rise when you consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will be added to the insurer's roles and they will not be able to charge them a proportionate amount.


Aren't you all saying that the insurance pools benefit from healthy people? Throwing 30-40 million more people into the private system will give them a ton more revenue compared to the added payouts. You all are the ones saying the private system can operate more efficiently, but under the current system they don't have any incentive to do so.

I imagine that not everyone will qualify for the public plan. The public plan will probably have an income limit or something to where its just for those who are marginalized by the private system, don't have employer provided coverage, or can't afford the coverage their employer provides. Also, as I understand it the public plan will operate like a regular insurance plan in that most users will still make a monthly payment. So while the plan might operate at a loss, it probably won't operate at as great of a loss as you all are projecting.

[BanginJimmy]

With a larger pool of people, the risk dispersed amongst a larger base, so you cannot just say that costs will rise. You would need some hard numbers to properly speculate on this. It is probable that the rates will rise - as they currently do - simply because the insurance companies need to show growth to their shareholders to have their stock prices increase. Nothing will change that.

Many of those people that are currently uninsured are not covered because they are high risk and an existing condition makes the rates too high for them, or they are denied coverage. Add those people to the roles of insurance companies and forcing insurance companies to charge them the same rate as everyone else in that demographic will lead to rise in rates.



Additional fees will be added on - with or without the additional people being insured by private companies - this is already happening. Taxes will rise whether or not this healthcare bill passes. That is a known issue that we will have to face.

OK, so we have the inevitable rise in taxes on insurance companies. Then you want to add even more risk to those companies? I thought this bill was about lowering health care costs, not raising them. Oh yea, the people pushing this hardest have already said they want a single payer system.


Doctors are already refusing to take Medicare, as Medicare is reducing payments by 21% - I posted an article on this a few days ago.

I missed the article, but makes my point even stronger. You have the so called "doctor fix", then an additional 500B in cuts to medicare. How many more docs are going to just quit accepting it? 3 years after benefits start on this bill, I see Congress coming out with a bill that requires all docs to accept medicare because so many will drop it to keep their prices lower and profits higher.

[BanginJimmy]

Aren't you all saying that the insurance pools benefit from healthy people? Throwing 30-40 million more people into the private system will give them a ton more revenue compared to the added payouts. You all are the ones saying the private system can operate more efficiently, but under the current system they don't have any incentive to do so.

You are assuming that all 30-40 million (your number) are healthy. All it takes is for a few hundred cancer patients to be added to the insurance company's roles before ALL revenue generated by the added numbers is used up.


I imagine that not everyone will qualify for the public plan. The public plan will probably have an income limit or something to where its just for those who are marginalized by the private system, don't have employer provided coverage, or can't afford the coverage their employer provides. Also, as I understand it the public plan will operate like a regular insurance plan in that most users will still make a monthly payment. So while the plan might operate at a loss, it probably won't operate at as great of a loss as you all are projecting.

There is no govt option in the current bill.

[BanginJimmy]

You are wrong in saying that there is absolutely no evidence that prevention reduces cost. What your article says is that the evidence is mixed and that in some instances it reduces cost and in some it doesn't. The author suggests that we can identify the services of preventative care that DO work to reduce costs and employ those.

There is still no evidence that prevention , in general, are a way to reduce costs. Yes, there are specific things that can be done to prevent costs, but as a whole, prevention is not a cost saver.


Another cost saving measure that has been proposed would be advance directives, which would save doctors and hospitals from legal troubles such as in the case of Terri Schaivo.

It isnt the govt's decision whether you should have one or not. That is a purely personal choice.


And theres also HR 1706, that prohibits name brand drug companies from paying the smaller drug companies for withholding the release of generic drugs.

Theres another bill that has something to do with the way prescription drugs are wholesaled... From what I heard, it will allow for more buying direct from the manufacturers. And it will also make for more accurate reporting of any discounts and incentive deals that happen between insurance companies, medicare, and big pharma.

I am all for tighter restrictions on pharmaceuticals, but where do we draw the line? Big pharma might spend 2 or 3B to develop a single drug that may or may not be a success, should they be required to immediately allow for a generic to be marketed?


I'm not going to quote our quote from the article, but here is a quote from the preceding paragraph.


Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.

[David88vert]

And theres also HR 1706, that prohibits name brand drug companies from paying the smaller drug companies for withholding the release of generic drugs.


That bill last moved from subcommittee to full commmittee on 6/3/2009.
There are plenty of lobbyists involved in it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.php?id=105597&lname=H.R.1706

[David88vert]

Many of those people that are currently uninsured are not covered because they are high risk and an existing condition makes the rates too high for them, or they are denied coverage. Add those people to the roles of insurance companies and forcing insurance companies to charge them the same rate as everyone else in that demographic will lead to rise in rates.

OK, so we have the inevitable rise in taxes on insurance companies. Then you want to add even more risk to those companies? I thought this bill was about lowering health care costs, not raising them. Oh yea, the people pushing this hardest have already said they want a single payer system.

I missed the article, but makes my point even stronger. You have the so called "doctor fix", then an additional 500B in cuts to medicare. How many more docs are going to just quit accepting it? 3 years after benefits start on this bill, I see Congress coming out with a bill that requires all docs to accept medicare because so many will drop it to keep their prices lower and profits higher.

Many that are currently not insured are those who choose not to purchase insurance, due to the cost vs the perceived amount of risk. Young people tend to opt out of spending on insurance as much. That is fact. Adding these will lower the risk, allowing insurance companies to balance out the higher risk insured that you mentioned. This could allow insurance companies to have the ability not to raise rates on a whole.

The reason that rates will rise has nothing to do with insurance claims. It has to do with profit. Private insurance companies are typically publically traded, and funded through their stockholders. These stockholders expect a postive return on their investment, so the company must show growth and profit. Rates will continue to rise to show increase in profit driven by revenue. As soon as your company stops growing, your investors will leave you for another company.

Medicare is broken, that cannot be denied. I am not a fan of government run healthcare, but I am able to look at the problem outside of the partisan lines.

[tony]

The reason that rates will rise has nothing to do with insurance claims. It has to do with profit. Private insurance companies are typically publically traded, and funded through their stockholders. These stockholders expect a postive return on their investment, so the company must show growth and profit. Rates will continue to rise to show increase in profit driven by revenue. As soon as your company stops growing, your investors will leave you for another company.



Even as a shareholder who has invested in Pharmaceutical companies that is so much of a conflict of interest that it is sickening. In a publicly traded company the shareholders are important but when it concerns the wellbeing of citizens the stakeholders and most notably the customers should be the first concern.

[ahmonrah]

i'm watching Cspan right now, and the health care bill leaves out the cost of paying doctors.......to the tune of $367billion, that's on TOP of the projected cost right now.

i'm gonna fuckin puke.

[ahmonrah]

Many that are currently not insured are those who choose not to purchase insurance, due to the cost vs the perceived amount of risk. Young people tend to opt out of spending on insurance as much. That is fact. Adding these will lower the risk, allowing insurance companies to balance out the higher risk insured that you mentioned. This could allow insurance companies to have the ability not to raise rates on a whole.

The reason that rates will rise has nothing to do with insurance claims. It has to do with profit. Private insurance companies are typically publically traded, and funded through their stockholders. These stockholders expect a postive return on their investment, so the company must show growth and profit. Rates will continue to rise to show increase in profit driven by revenue. As soon as your company stops growing, your investors will leave you for another company.

Medicare is broken, that cannot be denied. I am not a fan of government run healthcare, but I am able to look at the problem outside of the partisan lines.
:cheers:

i'm a fan of G healthcare, so long as it's used from the 35-40% that's already being taken from income taxes....i mean dayum.

question. does anyone have a definitive and non-biased synopsis of the government ran healthcare systems of the UK and Canada, France and Cuba?

from what i've seen before, England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England) began theirs after the obliteration of WW2, when their country was FUBAR. unless someone corrects me, their medical professionals are still well paid...

Canada? i personally have no idea. though it takes longer to be treated(C-span )

France (http://www.azdailysun.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_80982ff3-e67c-5690-8bee-ae10b8f0dfbe.html)...no clue exactly but it's rolled into their taxes.

reduce the frickin defense budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf)...actually, citizens need to go to DC, find every lobbyist and toss their asses out into the streets. but back to the defense budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf)...$663.7billion?? what enemies do we have? i mean, i know we have an empire....700 worldwide facilities attests to that. but do we have any enemies that warrant that $$? not that i know of. how about we have our services @ home, training as usual, occupying bases in the US for what they are for, defense of this land. i'm sure if all our forces were home, this in service would be happier, plus im sure the border hopping would stop fast as hell, seeing marines doing desert training @ the border. and i know, the military charter states they arent to operate inside the borders....take the fight to the enemy, but we are, IMO, spread thin as hell our back doors open.

then kick the bankers in the balls, get our money back, kick our Reps in their asses too...they work for us, not lobbyists


i'm frustrated as hell about this countrys current standings...... it's looking very, very, very bad.

[tony]

My unbiased understanding of healthcare in the countries you've mentioned. I know individuals who have lived in Canada, the U.K and France.

My Canadian friend likes her healthcare. She still pays for $120 a month for full coverage but she understands it could be much more. Has never had a problem with wait times or service.

The U.K system as I understand it has a lot of problems. Wait times suck unless you require critical care and they are taxed to all hell.

France has a very good system, again highly taxed but isn't run as bad as the U.K. Will you get the cutting edge technology that we have here in America? No but your treatment isn't going to be anything close to outdated either.

[David88vert]

My unbiased understanding of healthcare in the countries you've mentioned. I know individuals who have lived in Canada, the U.K and France.

My Canadian friend likes her healthcare. She still pays for $120 a month for full coverage but she understands it could be much more. Has never had a problem with wait times or service.

The U.K system as I understand it has a lot of problems. Wait times suck unless you require critical care and they are taxed to all hell.

France has a very good system, again highly taxed but isn't run as bad as the U.K. Will you get the cutting edge technology that we have here in America? No but your treatment isn't going to be anything close to outdated either.


Canadians often travel to the US, if they need healthcare.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/
Key Detail: "Because the government system is the only health care option for Canadians, she says she had no choice but to have the surgery in the U.S."

UK has long waits also.

France is rated to have the best system bar-none. It is very expensive. It is not without problems though, and is currently being modified to be more like the US system.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

[BanginJimmy]

Will you get the cutting edge technology that we have here in America? No but your treatment isn't going to be anything close to outdated either.


This is part of the problem everywhere. People want the latest and greatest procedures even if their are far less expensive alternatives that are just as good.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm a fan of G healthcare, so long as it's used from the 35-40% that's already being taken from income taxes....i mean dayum.

If the govt takes it over, expect you income taxes to go up to around 55-60%. You can also expect a sizable jump in your insurance rates, and your medicare taxes.

Hell, your current 35-40% is resulting in a 1.5T deficit, what do you think another 200B+ a year in spending is going to do?


reduce the frickin defense budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf)...actually, citizens need to go to DC, find every lobbyist and toss their asses out into the streets. but back to the defense budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf)...$663.7billion?? what enemies do we have? i mean, i know we have an empire....700 worldwide facilities attests to that. but do we have any enemies that warrant that $$? not that i know of. how about we have our services @ home, training as usual, occupying bases in the US for what they are for, defense of this land. i'm sure if all our forces were home, this in service would be happier, plus im sure the border hopping would stop fast as hell, seeing marines doing desert training @ the border. and i know, the military charter states they arent to operate inside the borders....take the fight to the enemy, but we are, IMO, spread thin as hell our back doors open.

You really have no clue where the defense budget is spent do you? More than 2/3 is spent on personnel and all of the things needed to support them, such as housing and medical care. The only place to really cut defense spending is in the acquisition process. I can tell you from my own experience, that entire process pushes the cost of anything to more than double what it should be.


A better idea would be to reduce spending on entitlements. All of that money is simply money that is wasted on those that have no intention of doing anything more than living off the govt tit.



then kick the bankers in the balls, get our money back, kick our Reps in their asses too...they work for us, not lobbyists

You also need to add the people that bought houses they couldnt afford and racked up crazy debt in the process.

Kick congress in the balls again for their credit card bill. As a result of that bill, 2 of my 3 CC's had an interest rate jump of better than 10% right before it kicked in.



i'm frustrated as hell about this countrys current standings...... it's looking very, very, very bad.

From a business and jobs sense, things will get better after cap and trade and health care legislation is killed. Also, after the Nov elections, the entire Obama platform will be over with, giving further confidence to businesses.

[dallasb84]

qft jimmy.... your on the money .....exactly...

if i may add my two cents.... obama's plan is and has always been supported by minority voters as well as younger age demographics for the soul purpose of majority acceptance... the problem is his "ideas" are merely a trick to turn the nations debt on the people who enacted and voted in this legislature.

his healthcare reform is nothing more than a ponzi scheme..... the same deal bernie maddoff created.

obamacare will be paid for by the next generation of tax payers......majority of which are born from minority families.

the only way for a healthcare reform to work is to have an exponential population growth of taxpayers able to pay for the last generations debt.


sorry obama


oh and one thing obama didnt see...... virginia has passed a state law banning healthcare reform.....

yeaayyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


if i were HNIC.... i would have federal funded emergency service hospitals....

to treat accidental injury, life threatening injuries, and life threatening trama and cancer treatment.

ONLY.

specialized medacine should be paid for by the idividual.....general health treated by the government.

[BanginJimmy]

I love how quickly people disappear and avoid admitting they are wrong.

Come on you Obama worshippers, at least you can admit that this legislation has less to do with cost controls than it does with additional govt control. We won't even get into the process they are using to shove this down our throats.

[tony]

lol You think people stop posting to avoid admitting wrong? Maybe its because the same conversation comes up with the same points with the same results.. no objectivity. I mean I could break down the responses but for what? We have a difference in ideology and many have shown that they will stick to their partisan beliefs rather than approach the subject objectively.

[Vteckidd]

Let them pass it like pelosi wants, the American people aren't stupid. This passes like they are talking it will be the end of democrats in power for a long time

[BanginJimmy]

That might be true but then we are still stuck with it. After its law no one will have the balls to go after repealing it as they would immediately be targeted saying they are against the poor and they are against minorities. You know, the same things we have been hearing since this started.

I actually wish there was a chance that the dems wouldn't be routed this year no matter what happens. Many of these dems already know they are gone, no matter hoq they vote, so what do they have to lose? Their job is to toe the line and take the hit. Obama will probably offer them jobs in his admin after they are voted out.

[Total_Blender]

I am all for tighter restrictions on pharmaceuticals, but where do we draw the line? Big pharma might spend 2 or 3B to develop a single drug that may or may not be a success, should they be required to immediately allow for a generic to be marketed?


If the smaller drug companies can come up with generics at a much lower cost than the big boys, why not allow them to compete? If the goal is to make the system more efficient, why are we allowing the big drug companies to hold back the companies that are actually efficient?


It isnt the govt's decision whether you should have one or not. That is a purely personal choice.

The legislation that proposed including advanced directives said that they are not mandatory. All it says is that you can bill your insurance for time you spend discussing end-of life options with your doctor and other healthcare professionals. Is an optional fucking consultation, you choose whether to have one or not. FUCKING FUCK, when will you rightwingers understand this?!!!!

Anyway, said directives will help hospitals and doctors from legal battles, and it will make the end-of-life care process more efficient.

As far as premiums go, your premiums are currently inflated because you're paying for those uninsured who go to the emergency rooms and have their services billed to indigent care. So having something outside of private insurance and the hospitals themselves to pay for this care will lower premiums. Granted, that money will still be coming out of somebody's pocket in some way or another, but it won't be an added cost.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_2010-03-17-US-Health-Overhaul-Fact-Check/id-p5b69115ce6c6454d9da9ef5f12d43979


The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.
For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.
The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

[Vteckidd]

If it's such an awesome bill why can't dems pass it? Surely all you libs feel the same way and this is such a great bill and piece of legislation why can't you pass it? Why do you have to emplore backdoor reconciliation and now a exclusion process making sure no one in the senate has to vote on a bill they don't want to pass.

This is deploreable and I have lost all faith I'm our legislative process. The point of passing legislation is doing it as above board as possible with a majority of votes to pass laws. What they are doing is saying "we will pass this anyway possible regardless of what everyone else thinks"

pelosi even said yesterday she likes the exclusionary process because "people won't have to attach their name to the senate bill" meaning they can look their constituents in the eye and say " technically I didn't vote for that"

this is the tactics and process we have reduced ourselves too?

[tony]

Many dems oppose it because it does not go far enough, they feel there should be a public option. Just got into a heated debate with a very liberal friend about this.

[Vteckidd]

That doesn't answer my question

if it's that big of an issue why are they trying to pass it? You're own party is obviously very divided over the issue, why pass it ?

So you're saying they should railroad their own party?

[tony]

This is deploreable and I have lost all faith I'm our legislative process. The point of passing legislation is doing it as above board as possible with a majority of votes to pass laws. What they are doing is saying "we will pass this anyway possible regardless of what everyone else thinks"

this is the tactics and process we have reduced ourselves too?

If your beef truly is with the legislative process then where was this sentiment during the Bush administration? Reconcilliation was a very common tool to push through legislation that would never pass through congress.

[tony]

That doesn't answer my question

if it's that big of an issue why are they trying to pass it? You're own party is obviously very divided over the issue, why pass it ?

So you're saying they should railroad their own party?

That is the rationale, it is why Kucinich held out till this point. They're divided because they are lifelong politicians and wont touch anything that threatens their position as such. This bill is a kamikaze bill for many Democrats, yeah the mission will get done but they wont be around to see it because they will get voted out, or maybe not but they don't want to risk it. Those who support it feel it is a step toward comprehensive health reform, ultimately it will pass but by a slim margin. I'm not a Democrat btw.

[Vteckidd]

If your beef truly is with the legislative process then where was this sentiment during the Bush administration? Reconcilliation was a very common tool to push through legislation that would never pass through congress.



Respectfully I have 2 opinions:

1) the use of reconciliation THEN is not even comparable to the use of it now. You can't possibly compare tax cuts to a total overhaul of 1/6th of our economy. Is this pandoras box now? Why vote on anything anymore just use reconciliation. Furthermore tax cuts is reducing existing tax rules, healthcare reform isn't reducing existing taxes ONLY, or reducing BUDGETARY excesses. Sure some will argue fey are the same thing but any rationale human being knows that the bush tax cuts is not even in the same arena of healthcare reform.

2) If bush was wrong in your mind then the dems are no different. I never get this argument "bush did it" so it's ok if Obama does it. I never said I agreed with bush using it either but again in my mind ita not even in the same arena. If bush used reconciliation to pass oh I don't know, the war on Iraq, or homeland security agency, then it would be a similar argument

[tony]

Legislative process is legislative process without variation in initiatives. Doesn't matter if it is Tax Cuts or Healthcare. You assume because you think I'm a Democrat that I was against reconciliation in the past but that couldn't be further from the truth. I have no problem with reconciliation, I never even said I had a problem with the tax cuts, while they did result in a growing deficit I don't fault the cuts for the economic collapse. All I was asking is, if the process is so broken where was the gripe then when it was being used then?

[BanginJimmy]

lol You think people stop posting to avoid admitting wrong?


In the case of Blurred Vision, yes.


Maybe its because the same conversation comes up with the same points with the same results.. no objectivity. I mean I could break down the responses but for what? We have a difference in ideology and

The convo is me asking what provisions will reduce costs for insurance companies, and therefore, those that are insured by them. To this point, I have seen one response to that question and I then debunked it. In fact, the original poster of that, Bu Villain, admitted that he was wrong on that point.


many have shown that they will stick to their partisan beliefs rather than approach the subject objectively.

Just making sure you include yourself in this.

[tony]

I have partisan views? Obviously on some level we all do but I go out of my way to minimize that influence. I form my own opinions on issues like healthcare, and on that issue I don't feel it should be a for profit industry. I feel there is a great conflict of interest when you mix in the interest of shareholders and profits when you are dealing with factors that determines whether an individual lives or dies. Did I get that view from Obama or Pelosi? No.. believe it or not some of us are able to form an opinion based on our own research and experiences.

[BanginJimmy]

That is the rationale, it is why Kucinich held out till this point. They're divided because they are lifelong politicians and wont touch anything that threatens their position as such. This bill is a kamikaze bill for many Democrats, yeah the mission will get done but they wont be around to see it because they will get voted out, or maybe not but they don't want to risk it. Those who support it feel it is a step toward comprehensive health reform, ultimately it will pass but by a slim margin. I'm not a Democrat btw.

Probably a stupid question, but arent the people in Congress there to represent their states or districts? If this bill is the political death you are saying it is, then it is such because they are voting against the wishes of their constituency. That is NOT their job. Their job is to represent, not ignore, their constituency. Instead we have a bunch of career politicians who vow their complete support to their party first, their job second, themselves third, and somewhere further down the list, the people they are supposed to be representing.

[BanginJimmy]

I have partisan views? Obviously on some level we all do but I go out of my way to minimize that influence. I form my own opinions on issues like healthcare, and on that issue I don't feel it should be a for profit industry. I feel there is a great conflict of interest when you mix in the interest of shareholders and profits when you are dealing with factors that determines whether an individual lives or dies. Did I get that view from Obama or Pelosi? No.. believe it or not some of us are able to form an opinion based on our own research and experiences.

So what should be a for profit business? People need a place to live, so I guess anyone in the housing market should be a non-profit. The same can be said of anyone that sells food. The argument could also be made of the auto industry. If you cant get to work, you cant make money to buy the other necessities. Maybe the govt can provide all of those to us to. Hell, before long, we will be required to attend party meetings to make sure we have access to all the wonderful benefits of socialism.

[tony]

So what should be a for profit business? People need a place to live, so I guess anyone in the housing market should be a non-profit. The same can be said of anyone that sells food. The argument could also be made of the auto industry. If you cant get to work, you cant make money to buy the other necessities. Maybe the govt can provide all of those to us to. Hell, before long, we will be required to attend party meetings to make sure we have access to all the wonderful benefits of socialism.

People could theoretically fight their own fires or enforce their own laws too, want to make that a for profit industry? How about education? I mean the resources are there for people to educate their selves now. What you've posted is nothing more than a Red Herring, the housing market, food or the auto industry has nothing to do with healthcare. People aren't doing their own double bypass surgeries at home, it goes much deeper.

[BanginJimmy]

People do hire their own law enforcement, their own fire protection, and provide for their own education. Those are all for-profit industries and all of them out-perform govt run entities when you can compare apple to apples.

It has nothing to do with just health care, it has to do with your statement about which industries our govt should allow to make a profit.

You bring up bypass surgery, yet how many people do you know that are building their own cars?

[tony]

People do hire their own law enforcement, their own fire protection, and provide for their own education. Those are all for-profit industries and all of them out-perform govt run entities when you can compare apple to apples.

It has nothing to do with just health care, it has to do with your statement about which industries our govt should allow to make a profit.

You bring up bypass surgery, yet how many people do you know that are building their own cars?

For individuals yes, for an entire country especially one as populated as the U.S I could safely assume well over 96% of individuals rely on their local government for fire protection and law enforcement. And do you really want to compare building a car to bypass surgery? Thats really stretching an analogy.

[Vteckidd]

Ok let's abolish reconcilliation and "slaughter rule" altogether. If it can't pass let it die. Right now I see congress doing everything in their power to pass legislation 1) their constituents do not want (all national polls put public support under 50% 2) their own party doesn't want (if they did it would have passed by now

For Obama to say "I don't really care for the procedures" was shocking. Why have a constitution, why have a legislature, why do anything? This was the change he promised? What happened to changing washington? Doing away with politics as usual?

I'm in favor of kicking everyone out right now

[tony]

Without Reconcilliation you have much more of a deadlocked legislative process, if you choose to be the obstructionist party then all you'd have to do is block everything that would require 2/3rds of the vote.

And about the constituency, I typed up a full reply then lost it. Unless someone does some extensive research and can show that the people in the districts of those congressmen who will vote toward passing this bill do not want health care reform, I can't buy into that. Everyone references the polls but remember, the people who are voting for this bill are liberal Democrats alone. So if you're going to reference the polls and say the Congressmen are not voting in the interest of their constituents, you need to remove those areas represented by people who will not vote for the bill. That means Republican districts and blue dog democrats cannot be accounted for.

[David88vert]

If the smaller drug companies can come up with generics at a much lower cost than the big boys, why not allow them to compete? If the goal is to make the system more efficient, why are we allowing the big drug companies to hold back the companies that are actually efficient?



The legislation that proposed including advanced directives said that they are not mandatory. All it says is that you can bill your insurance for time you spend discussing end-of life options with your doctor and other healthcare professionals. Is an optional fucking consultation, you choose whether to have one or not. FUCKING FUCK, when will you rightwingers understand this?!!!!

Anyway, said directives will help hospitals and doctors from legal battles, and it will make the end-of-life care process more efficient.

As far as premiums go, your premiums are currently inflated because you're paying for those uninsured who go to the emergency rooms and have their services billed to indigent care. So having something outside of private insurance and the hospitals themselves to pay for this care will lower premiums. Granted, that money will still be coming out of somebody's pocket in some way or another, but it won't be an added cost.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_2010-03-17-US-Health-Overhaul-Fact-Check/id-p5b69115ce6c6454d9da9ef5f12d43979


The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.
For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.
The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.



It appears that you do not understand patents, R&D costs, or that insurance is actually risk management, not a debit card that you are entitled to.

A discussion with your doctor should be paid out of pocket, if you want reduced premiums.

Major medical costs is all that should be paid for by insurance. The sooner that ignorant people learn that, the sooner all will have affordable premiums - just like auto/home/life insurance. Insurance should only be used to cover major, unexpected costs, not simple office visits. It is this entitlement mentality that has sent medical insurance premiums skyward. Now, you and Obama think that spreading this thinking to the entire country will drive them down? A logical and rational thought process could not, and would not, come to a conclusion that this healthcare entitlement plan could work effectively and efficiently.

[David88vert]

Did the founders of our country use reconciliation to pass legislation? No, it was introduced in 1974. Amazingly, our country existed almost 200 years without it just fine.

On the other point - evidently enough Democrats believe that their constituents do not want it that they are not willing to vote for it. That right there should stop this bill.

[tony]

Did the founders of our country use reconciliation to pass legislation? No, it was introduced in 1974. Amazingly, our country existed almost 200 years without it just fine.

On the other point - evidently enough Democrats believe that their constituents do not want it that they are not willing to vote for it. That right there should stop this bill.

And how much has the two party system evolved in those 200 years, and so goes the process. If there are enough votes to pass the legislation then apparently there were enough Democrats that wanted it.

[Total_Blender]

Some of the Dems who aren't voting for it are holding out because they want single payer (Dennis Kucinich, et. al) Also, there are some who may not be happy with the current plan but do support healthcare reform. I'm not 100% satisfied with the current plan (I would rather have single payer as well). So just because someone is dissatisfied with the current proposals, does not necessarily mean that they are opposed to the concept of healthcare reform.

[Browning151]

The CBO just released new numbers today on the healthcare bill. The report says it will reduce the deficit by $138 billion yet the total cost is up to $940 billion, up from $875 billion. This thing just continues to grow and grow.

[David88vert]

And how much has the two party system evolved in those 200 years, and so goes the process. If there are enough votes to pass the legislation then apparently there were enough Democrats that wanted it.

Let's see, they changed from a 2 party system (Whigs & Tories), to different groups, without removing the voting process. Now they need to avoid being accountable to their constituents, who had to vote to elect them in?

The Democrats do NOT have enough votes to pass healthcare through a vote. That is fact. Only 11 votes more are needed to kill it entirely - if they allow it to be brought to a vote. Any other method or process is trying to circumvent the very system put in place to protect the people.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/03/politics/health.care.votes/index.html

[David88vert]

Some of the Dems who aren't voting for it are holding out because they want single payer (Dennis Kucinich, et. al) Also, there are some who may not be happy with the current plan but do support healthcare reform. I'm not 100% satisfied with the current plan (I would rather have single payer as well). So just because someone is dissatisfied with the current proposals, does not necessarily mean that they are opposed to the concept of healthcare reform.

Kucinich is voting FOR it. He already switched his vote.

[BanginJimmy]

Stupak and some of his gang are going to vote for it also. Obama is pushing on them hard and offering people administration jobs in exchange for their vote.


Has anyone ever seen more corruption in DC than we are right now? We have at least 3 cases of obvious bribery in the Senate Bill in the cases of Ben Nelson, Mary Landreau , and Bill Nelson.

In the House, we have sort of pay to play deals with at least 4 dems retiring at the end of their term, just to walk right into an administration job that will be waiting for them. The cost to the appointee? Their 'yes' vote on health care. Bart Gordon has been promised NASA. John Tanner, US Ambassador to NATO.
Both of these are now 'yes' votes that voted agaisnt it in Nov.

[BanginJimmy]

It seems that those of us that said this bill would raise costs, lead to rationing, drive people out of their current coverage, and ruin doctor's practices, therefore limiting access, were right after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/health-care-law-increase-costs-experts-conclude-new-report/

[tony]

Fox news clearly has no agenda in their reporting and therefor can be trusted to report the news in an unbiased fashion..

[Vteckidd]

Fox news clearly has no agenda in their reporting and therefor can be trusted to report the news in an unbiased fashion..

it seems this report is coming from the OBAMA administration bean counters, Fox is just reporting it. I have not looked at it just pointing this out


The Obama administration on Friday defended the new health insurance law after a report from its own Medicare services agency showed the provisions will increase the nation's health care tab over the next 10 years instead of bringing costs down.

[BanginJimmy]

Fox news clearly has no agenda in their reporting and therefor can be trusted to report the news in an unbiased fashion..

Considering FOX is the only news organization that does not wait for approval from the white house before running a story you might not find it unusual that FOX was the first to report this. I havent checked, has MSNBC or CNN reported this at all?

[tony]

I know of a number of news outlets that act independently of a political agenda, they're just not as popular because they believe their listeners are intelligent enough to form their own opinion without it being given to them. And no I dont watch MSNBC or CNN either, both fall in the same line as Fox, although MSNBC does more than CNN.

[Total_Blender]

CNN has some new conservative goober on in Glenn Beck's old timeslot during Prime Time now. And MSNBC has a conservative host for their morning show. I have yet to see a liberal employed by Fox News other than Alan Colmes (who isn't much of a liberal really, since he spent most of his time at Fox nodding his head and agreeing with everything) and he's not even on the show with Hannitard anymore, so...

[Vteckidd]

FOX news doesnt EMPLOY any liberals except Colmes but they do have liberals on as regulars as contributors

Bob Beckel is on Hannity almost 3 times a week
Oreilley has the professor from HArvard IIRC almost on all the time (the young black guy)

They almost ALWAYS have a liberal rebuttal to ANYTHING they report on.

[BanginJimmy]

CNN has some new conservative goober on in Glenn Beck's old timeslot during Prime Time now. And MSNBC has a conservative host for their morning show. I have yet to see a liberal employed by Fox News other than Alan Colmes (who isn't much of a liberal really, since he spent most of his time at Fox nodding his head and agreeing with everything) and he's not even on the show with Hannitard anymore, so...


Which ratings and advertising cost leading show would you like to see cancelled to make room for a show that will flop? The simple fact is that even if FOX's only ambition was profit, they still wouldnt have a liberal on because hurt their pocket book. At 3am you can find better ratings on FOX than you can at prime time on MSNBC.