ROCK, FLAG, AND EAGGGLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!1

7/16/2009 10:32:33 PM

GONNA RISE UP

GONNA KICK ALITTLE ASS!!!

Quote :

"One of the reasons it is so expensive is becasue of gov't mandates on policies. States won't allow insurance companies and employers to offer low-cost, no-frills, designed mainly for young healthy people. If you force insurance companies to include particular benefits that some politician wants, costs go up and consumer-desired benefits go down. Get the go'vt out of health-care, let it be consumer-driven instead of gov't-controlled. The system should be returned to one where consumers paid for everyday small medical bills themselves, and insurance was saved for catastrophic problems. Costs would go down significantly if consumers, and not insurance companies paid for everyday health-care. We don't use our auto-insurance to buy gas. Why use medical insurance to cover colds, and stitches?"

seriously this is fucking lala land

your car analogy is also stupid. The cost of car work is directly related to how expensive your car is. Which on most occasions costs loads of fucking money. I had some weird bump things on my crotch area that cost me 200 bucks to have removed. Next time I saw them I just got a needle out and removed them on my own because I couldn't afford it. Young healthy people still have problems and it still costs alot of money along with paying for monthly benefits to deal with these problems. I know we're paying either way but what your saying is stupppppppppppppid.

also god damn 25 dollar co-pays is too much for most people. Do you even go to the doctor?

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 1:58 AM. Reason : /]

7/17/2009 1:58:05 AM

Quote :

"I don't wanna pay for the surgery of excessive runners, athletes, etc... All the super fit, vain bitches I see out on the street better be saving those dollars for when they need half their body parts replaced at 45."

Exactly. Everyone should have to pay 100% of their own self-caused health-care needs. (Wait.... Bridget agrees?)

7/17/2009 7:42:50 AM

haha, 25-dollar co-pays are too much? WAAAAAAAAAAH, I HAVE TO PAY FOR A SERVICE, WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

You don't seem to understand that your complaint about the cost of having "bumps removed" is directly related to the increase in costs caused by gov't. If the gov't weren't paying less than the actual cost via medicare and medicaid, it would have cost you less.

7/17/2009 7:54:15 AM

Here's an interesting write-up that summarizes the health-care systems of other world powers.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-an-introduction/

7/17/2009 8:47:29 AM

Quote :

"It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee. It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law. So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers…."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/07/well-i-am-down-to-two-health-insurance-choices.html
Does anyone here know for sure whether this is true or not?

7/17/2009 10:03:46 AM

The bill is over 1000 pages long. It's going to affect every American. Politicians who are voting for it have never read it.

But we have to pass this before August! Hurry Up! Don't Read It!

Why do we need an arbitrary deadline of the end of summer to consider the gov't taking over a big chunk of the economy?

This is the same Obama strategy -shove giant money-wasting, liberty-robbing bills through before working people can even get a chance to read it and digest it.

7/17/2009 10:33:17 AM

this shit frightens me

7/17/2009 10:39:41 AM

good

then all emotion should be numb by the time the militias start firing on the tanks coming to put you all in the "those who love america" containment camps

7/17/2009 11:03:51 AM

^^^^it's not. it's a definition for what grandfathered plans are (ie those that don't have to follow new rules set forth in the law).

see:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/07/good-to-know.html

7/17/2009 11:07:41 AM

You with your FACTS. Everybody knows facts have a liberal bias.

7/17/2009 11:28:54 AM

I'm pretty sure partisan blogs are the BEST places to get information.

7/17/2009 11:42:51 AM

From the bill:

Quote :

"(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage- (1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."

The way I read this is you can keep your current insurance plan, but if you lose it or decide to switch plans, you are required to purchase your subsequent plans through the "exchange," which limits your choices to the few plans congress deems fit.

I obviously haven't read the entire bill, so correct me if I am wrong.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 11:51:16 AM

Quote :

"(a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."

this is the key part. the bill is requiring private health insurance providers to be part of an exchange. (unless they are grandfathered in)



[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason : a provision that was endorsed by mccain last year iirc]

7/17/2009 11:53:18 AM

^ And that is qualified with "In General"

And the exchange also has a higher tier for someone to purchase more coverage if they want.

It seems the exchange does little more than establish a lowest tier health package that should be very affordable.

Here's congress' flier on the exchange: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/exchange.pdf

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 12:07:39 PM

has anyone mention medical tort reform??

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/medical_tort_reform.html

7/17/2009 2:39:22 PM

no. none of us have ever heard of this "tort reform" you speak of.

ok, i'll play. put yourself in the position of the patient whose doctor royally screwed the pooch and possibly fucked up your life in the process. what $ amount would you put on that screw-up?

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 2:48:26 PM

youre missing the point, there are legitimate malpractice suits. but the majority are frivolous and are attempts to screw a hardworking physician and insurance companies catch some of the heat. this is not new. this causes insurance rates and health care costs to skyrocket

7/17/2009 3:05:40 PM

oh we know, but who draws up the guidelines and determines what is "frivolous"? i'm pretty hesitant to define that knowing what i know now about supposed "frivolous" treatments i once had that i might sue for.

7/17/2009 3:08:52 PM

i tell you who shouldnt draw up those guidelines, the gov't

7/17/2009 3:13:41 PM

as opposed to who? the AMA? the ABA?

you act like the govt. is the only organization capable of acting against the public's true interest.

this is why having tort reform is so tricky.

7/17/2009 3:15:33 PM

no reform is easy, and someone will always be pissed off at the outcome

blood sucking ambulance chasers should be the distraught in this case

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 3:25 PM. Reason : the legitamate trial lawyers will have no problem getting by despite the reform]

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 3:24:42 PM

yes, only lawyers are capable of self-interest.

doctors, hospitals, and insurers are benevolent creatures.

7/17/2009 3:26:03 PM

are you kidding me

you cannot compare trial lawyers and physicians ... two opposite ends of the spectrum

7/17/2009 3:30:16 PM

care to explain why the self-interest of one of those groups is better than the self-interest of another?

are lawyers always more dishonest than physicians? can you prove they're more willing to do the wrong thing to pad their pockets? or is this anecdotal evidence based on the fact that John Edwards is a bad example?

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 3:47:11 PM

do you realize the difference in expenses that goes into a medical private practice compared to a lawyers practice .... mri's and cat scans are a little more expensive than a fax/copy machine

medical expenses are fairly universal, civil settlements are not ... if they could successfully counter sue a frivolous lawsuit, then maybe it would be fair

plus, physicians can lose their license from one moronic lawsuit, despite the outcome ... lawyers will not

id say thats a big factor for physicians to keep their practices legit, lawyers will not be disbarred for bringing a frivolous lawsuit to trial

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : if they were disbarred .. trial lawyers would be few and far between]

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : if you get in a wreck, you dont get hundreds of advertisement letters from physicians ... ]

7/17/2009 3:52:10 PM

well i would hope doctors would be held to a higher standard. lives are on the line, you know.

who do you think should write tort reform laws?

7/17/2009 4:01:59 PM

ideally congress should reform it

but since trial lawyers are one of the largest contributors to the democratic party, any tort reform initiative would not leave the house, and especially would not be added to obamacare

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : read the article]

7/17/2009 4:10:48 PM

yahtzee!

7/17/2009 6:56:14 PM

Quote :

" WASHINGTON – Democrats' health care bills won't meet President Barack Obama's goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress' budget umpire warned on Thursday, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the bank. [...] From the beginning of the health care debate, Obama has insisted that any overhaul must "bend the curve" of rapidly rising costs that threaten to swamp the budgets of government, businesses and families. Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., if the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that — as things stand now — "the curve is being raised." Explained [CBO Director Doug] Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." Even if the legislation doesn't add to the federal deficit over the next years, Elmendorf said costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM. Reason : link]

7/17/2009 8:23:42 PM

Quote :

"On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,'" wrote AMA Vice President Michael Maves in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel. "This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House."

\
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/american-medical-association-endorses-house-health-care-bill.php

WHY DOES THE AMA HATE HEALTHCARE, FREEDOM?!?

7/17/2009 11:05:11 PM

pretty off-topic, but is "healthcare" a single word now?

7/17/2009 11:15:27 PM

^ According to Webster's American Dictionary, yes.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 11:25 PM. Reason : But not The Associated Press Stylebook. ]

7/17/2009 11:21:00 PM

^^^ Because something is in it for them.

7/18/2009 9:55:30 AM

Quote :

"Landrieu: Don't rush reform Centrists oppose plan for health care system Saturday, July 18, 2009 By Jonathan Tilove Washington bureau WASHINGTON -- A half-dozen centrist senators, including Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., are seeking to slow down the rush to health care reform, asking the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate for "additional time to achieve a bipartisan result." The letter, sent Friday, was signed by Democrats Landrieu, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Ben Nelson of Nebraska; Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. It represents disappointing news for President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress who are pressing for quick action on changing the health care system. In their letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,, Landrieu and her colleagues wrote that while "we are firmly committed to enactment of comprehensive health reform this year," the historic scope and importance of the effort "makes it imperative to proceed thoughtfully and responsibly." "

Finally, some sanity.

Quote :

"And, in the fast-developing and sometimes surprising politics of the health care debate, it came even as the dozen members of the GOP Doctors Caucus -- including three from Louisiana -- wrote the leadership of the American Medical Association to express their distress with the announcement by the AMA leadership Thursday that they were endorsing the health care reform plan unveiled by House Democrats this week. In their letter, Reps. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge; Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette; and John Fleming, R-Minden, and other Republican physicians noted that the AMA was now supporting a plan that would include "the establishment of a government-run option based on Medicare rates (that) will create an unfair advantage that is not available to the private sector. This will effectively crowd out the private market leaving only a government-run option available to consumers." In their letter to Michael Maves, the AMA's CEO and executive vice president, the Republican doctors wrote: "As we all try to work together to reach sensible and comprehensive health care reform, we would like to remind you that 'reform' in this case should not be synonymous with 'government-run.' Unfortunately though, based on the endorsement of this legislation, we fully believe that the AMA has lost touch with the vast majority of physicians in this country." "

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1247894785103480.xml&coll=1

7/18/2009 10:49:07 PM

This whole affair is shaping up to be a classic battle between the risk-averse legislature and an ambitious President. I see no way Obama wins.

Here's a simplified scenario explaining why:

If you're a Democratic senator, let's say 60% of people likely to vote for you support this bill.

Then your best option is, I think, to vote 'no' on a health care plan. Because the 60% who want the bill, they aren't going to punish you by voting Republican -- the GOP isn't ever going to be a better choice for expanding health care. Your only real worry would be a well-funded primary battle in the next election cycle; but that's clearly an extremely risky move for the party, and not likely to work out in swing states. So the 60% are really with you either way; the real question is whether you risk alienating the 40% who don't support the plan.

In short: there's little chance that centrist or even left-leaning Democrats will go along with the bill, unless public support for it goes through the roof (unlikely). Obama is in basically the same situation Bush was with Social Security reform.

And what's more, this is the way the system is supposed to work. The founders were very smart to put the different branches of government on different 'cycles' of accountability. Even a single-party government will bite its own head off trying to move quickly on expansive reforms.

It would seem in our system it's very hard to get legislators to take risks, because they really have no incentive when it comes to issues the party 'owns.' Most likely the only way to do it with the health care bill would be to load it down with an insane amount of pork; but given that cost is one of the major factors driving public opposition, then there's a serious, paradoxical problem with increasing its cost to increase support.

This bill -- any version of comprehensive health care reform, at this time -- is headed into the dustbin unless the Democratic party really has a suicidal instinct ...

7/19/2009 6:21:44 PM

Quote :

"Finally, some sanity. "

....from a group of six people who have taken in $11 million in campaign donations from the medial, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries.

7/19/2009 6:39:08 PM

dont even start about campaign donations and current initiatives .. are you kidding

11 million is a congress dollar menu now

[Edited on July 19, 2009 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2009 6:50:50 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/17/pay_for_care_a_new_way_state_is_urged/

Quote :

"The 10-member commission, which includes key legislators and members of Governor Deval Patrick’s administration, voted unanimously to largely scrap the current system, in which insurers typically pay doctors and hospitals a negotiated fee for each individual procedure or visit. That arrangement is widely seen as leading to unneeded tests and procedures. Instead, the group wants private insurers and the state and federal Medicaid program to pay providers a set payment for each patient that covers all that person’s care for an entire year and to make the radical shift within five years. Providers would have to work within a predetermined budget, forcing them to better coordinate patients’ care, which could improve quality and reduce costs. ... Commission members stressed that failing to control medical spending - which is growing by more than 8 percent annually in Massachusetts, driven largely by the high price and heavy use of hospitals - could threaten the state’s model health insurance law and bankrupt employers and patients. Still, while commission members who represent doctors and hospitals endorsed the change, they have serious reservations. They are afraid that a new payment system could create serious financial problems for providers if the yearly fees are too low and if they are not adjusted upward for patients who are very sick or at risk of serious disease and require more care. Low payments were one reason for the downfall of a similar payment system (called capitation) tried in the 1990s, providers said. ... The plan would require significant restructuring of the healthcare system, and some of its components would need legislative approval. Primary-care doctors, specialists, hospitals, and home healthcare agencies would have to form so-called accountable care organizations. Patients would choose a primary care doctor to coordinate their care, mostly within the organization. Insurers would pay the accountable care organization a flat yearly per-patient fee to be divided among the providers. Consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system. Patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget. And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization. ... The recommendations call for a special “oversight entity’’ or agency to develop details and monitor results. And the approval of the federal government would almost certainly be needed to change how Medicaid pays providers. ... Because of the health insurance law, about 97 percent of all Massachusetts residents are covered, the highest rate in the nation. But soaring costs threaten to make state subsidies for lower-income residents and their out-of-pocket payments too expensive. ... But Moore acknowledged that the current state budget crisis is a distraction and makes it unclear how the state will pay for start-up costs. Sarah Iselin, , cochairwoman of the commission and head of the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, said there are no estimates of start-up costs or potential savings from a global payment system. But she said that “the opportunities for savings are significant.’’"

All the hell of an HMO + new layers of government bureaucrats + a yearly limit on the amount of care you can receive and somehow this is all better and preferable to what we have now? Even better they don't actually have an estimates for whether this will actually save them money, they just know that the opportunities are "significant".

I wonder how the government plans to counter the incentive such a program creates for a provider to deny care as "unnecessary" and pocket the difference at the end of the year.

How anyone can look at what is happening in Massachusetts today and want this for the country as a whole is beyond me.

7/19/2009 8:08:05 PM

Quote :

"from a group of six people who have taken in $11 million in campaign donations from the medial, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries. "

..and no Trial Lawyers or AMA members gave a dime to Obama, right?

7/20/2009 1:33:10 AM

Here are some interesting links.

http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0P?XRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7fe04f2e-802a-23ad-485d-f03040e719eb

You better hope you don't get sick after about age 65.

7/20/2009 12:00:23 PM

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/ - yeah, because it's so great now. That's hilarious.....

how about, "you better hope you don't get sick..... ever. or change jobs. or lose a job. or forget to report to your insurance company that you had a mole removed when you were 8 years old. or do anything outside of eating, sleeping and going to work that could put your body in danger. or have kids. or grow old"

7/20/2009 12:29:41 PM

^The new plan looks like it will only make things worse. Socialized healthcare doesn't work too well. Just look at Great Britain to understand. My friend who is from England had his dad die of cancer about a year ago. His dad had to wait 4 months to get help because of their system. From what I am hearing, ours will be somewhat simular.

7/20/2009 12:34:18 PM

uuhhh..... our system is already like that. Jesus, you act like you could stroll into a Specialist's office tomorrow for whatever problem you had. I think this was brought up in an earlier thread w/r/t "rationing" and, I believe, Hunt's argument was simply "oh yeah, well of course there are wait times in the US, because of 'natural rationing'. I mean, there isn't an infinite number of specialists, after all". Which of course is true, but when it happens in the US, it's just because you have to wait your turn. When it happens in the UK, it's because of the evil socialized government.

btw, let me know when or where anyone (in power) said we are aiming for or planning on implementing anything close to real socialized healthcare or modeling what we do off the UK.

7/20/2009 12:41:51 PM

^It is socialized healthcare since the government will be taking it over. Yeh, Obama said we can keep our private insurance if we want too, but in the end this system will end up running all of the private insurance companies out of business which will only cause a loss in more jobs when private insurance providers no longer exist. Then there is the issue of small businesses having to provide health insurance. That will result in lower wages and fewer jobs since no one will want to pay for the insurance. All this plan is good for is running up the national debt. How great are government run programs, well look at Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

7/20/2009 12:56:26 PM

Germany has a working and very popular public/private system, where private plans are still available and the public plan competes just fine with it and doesn't drive them out of business like you're so scared any plan in the US would

7/20/2009 1:03:36 PM

Our existing system already has socialized risk. Govcare wont change that. The only real change is that it will cover more people and could reduce costs by forcing prices down on providers (like walmart does with its suppliers)

The problems with the system are the same as with the current system. People dont pay for what they consume. The result is prices continue to rise as consumption increases. For an individual who doesnt consume any healthcare (young person) this seems (and is) unfair. This increasing cost combined with the bueracracy of health insurance companies (which will be transfered to the fed under govcare) is what makes up most of the cost.

The problem is somewhat the same as social security. Its essentially a ponzi scheme where people put money in and get nothing or a fraction of the value back. This is why im a fan of both tax free retirement accounts (IRA/401k) and tax free health savings accounts. If a young person invests in the 401k/HSA at a young age that money will be available for them when they need it at an older age.

You then get rid of the current health insurance system and give the money that employers usually pay to insurers to employees. This money then goes into your HSA. You pay docs cash money out of your HSA for normal procedures. This protects the sustainability of the system because you pay for what you use. You then get accident insurance for the big things like getting hit by a bus.

For poor people, the fed will pay for those regular doc visits and accident insurance. To offset that cost make donations to charities that pay for doc visits or do other things to help the poor with their healthcare completely tax deductable.

7/20/2009 1:11:30 PM

^Not a bad idea. And you are correct on the comparison to SS. In the end all this new system will do is raise taxes as the government will run out of money over the long run and need to somehow fund it. Thus we will not save tax dollars, we will just pay more tax dollars which is the total opposite of what Obama claims will happen. The links I provided highlight some of the flaws with this plan and is why I am against it.

7/20/2009 1:25:17 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090720/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_poll

7/20/2009 1:27:52 PM

Quote :

"Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats argue the plan, with an estimated cost of more than $1 trillion, could hurt small businesses, add to budget deficits and reduce the quality of medical care for many Americans."

And that is the major problem.

7/20/2009 1:34:55 PM