Health Care Reform Bill

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Georgia Hi Big_Lefty: Sorry you don't understand what I'm saying, even though I've plainly explained it 3 times now. We can agree the goal of government isn't choice, but in your same sentence you claim the govenment offers "Choice" in this plan. Which is it? Forget all the double talk. Please explain why you think the U.S. Government can overtake and run the U.S. National health care industry, or even a portion of it for less cost and more efficiently than the private sector, knowing Social Security is scheduled to be insolvent in only a few short years, followed by Medicaid and Medicare. Not to mention almost 3,000,000,000,000 in recent debt said neccessary to keep the U.S. economy floating?

I'm sorry to see you continue to pretend I did not understand what you said in order to cover for your inconsistent statements.
It may be impossible to converse with you productively.

Re; "which is it"- you present a false dichotomy. My statement in no way implied that I think the goal of government is to offer choice.
As an analogy, that's rather akin to suggesting that pointing out that a government plan offers free cheese means I think the purpose of government is to offer free cheese.
If you'd like discuss the purpose of gov't, I think that's an excellent idea for a new thread and I'd be glad to contribute.

Re; forgetting double talk- you have made an unjustified accusation. I assume the goal of this is to distract from your inconsistent and fallacious statements and try to goad me into to responding to questions which rest on unproven claims.

Re; your question- this is another pointless query because it rests on a strawman argument. I have not claimed the above, I have only asked why you think it cannot be done and suggested measures which might aid the effort, such as cutting military spending.

I do not know if the US government can run health care for less cost and more efficiently than the private sector. I know only that other governments in other nations have, and that in fact, single payer programs have been less costly and more efficient than the US private system.
Based on that, I naturally conclude that it is possible Americans can do the same.
However, it's also possible that there is some unique type of ineptitude particular to Americans which would prevail. I can't think why that would be, so maybe you could help me out with that one.
Why do you think it isn't possible?

I hope that answer is satisfactory, but if not, it's on you for posing a question based on a fallacy.

It's worth noting that you have avoided answering several of my questions altogether, yet you somehow expect me to respond to these improperly posed queries in such a way that pleases you.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Apeman81 I do not support advancing a government plan as "competition" to the existing, private plans that dictates changes to the existing private plans. Competition does not historically allow one competitor to dictate conditions all others must meet to compete. Further, a comprehensive read demonstrates that in addition to new mandates as contained in the government definition of "acceptable" with regards to items covered, actuarial mandates are included as well, the effect of which is to weaken the position of the insurer to remain profitable. As you know, the government has absolutely no incentive to profit. This disparity of government mandated tax increases to pay for its healthcare expenditures while at the same time denying private insurers the actuarial freedom to control their income will, in the end, do exactly what is designed to do; drive existing coverage out of the market. As for the consumer protection laws in general? Perhaps if we the people would attend to our own business, we would not require a Nanny in Washington to "protect" us from ourselves.

It's possible, but I generally like to avoid arguments that are based on a prediction. The fact remains that other nations have both public and private insurance, so the end of private health insurance is obviously not inevitable. Upon what do you base your prediction? Do you have an example of a situation where this occurred?

Another question- do you think consumer protection should be sacrificed in order to keep an industry profitable? Would that include health and safety regulations?

I don't find that the use of hyperbolic language about the so-called nanny state contributes to productive discussion, and I fail to see what attending to one's own business has to do with it. Are you suggesting that predatory and unfair business practices should be allowed on the theory that people who are victimized by them are themselves to blame?

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Georgia More than $11,600,000,000,000 in national debt More than $58,00,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities Almost $190,000 liability per citzen. I have just made my financial case.

That is an excellent case for reducing military spending, which is responsible for much of the debt.
What case are you claiming to have made?

[big_lefty]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo As I suspected, your use of the example is specious. You hold this up as an example of the problem with the Canadian system and I'm sure you've used this personal appeal with many people and yet you are completely ignorant of what you are talking about. You have no idea why he had to wait 3 weeks before seeing his doctor yet obviously you never mention that fact when trying to convince someone of how bad their system is. Here I'll do the same thing you did - Your cousin had to wait and suffer for three weeks because he was too lazy to make an appointment with his doctor. - see how easy it is to just make some crap up. Yes, I'm sure they were... funny but everyone from Canada I've ever heard from loves their system. But you have the inside line on it because you claim to have relatives and friends in Canada. *rolling eyes* Did you tell that person - well, here in the USA where we have the best healthcare in the world, your kid would have to suffer if you can't afford to see a doctor, but don't fear, if your kid gets REALLY sick you can take him to the ER. - No, you didn't say that right? Instead you give us this bull about how Canadians are so dependant on the government that any other option is unthinkable... Are you sure it isn't that, their system makes so much sense that not having it is simply unthinkable? I lived in Detroit for many years and we would head to Canada all the time, I never noticed that they were mindless spectres living off the government tit and unable to think or care for themselves. Funny because as far as I know Canada has less debt, higher HS graduation rate, lower infant moratility, higher public satisfaction of society... in fact, Canada beats us statistically in virtually every category except, military spending and GDP. Too bad it's so cold up there or I'd be typing this from that side of the border.

Thanks for defending us up here. It sometimes seems like nearly every proponent of private, for-profit medicine has a buddy in Canada who hates our system. Yet polls show most Canadians like it.
Based on that, I figure most of these stories have to be inventions or misrepresentations.

I'll never forget one guy who made a similar claim. He said he'd just gotten back from visiting his friend in Canada who hates our health care and wants a US style system. He then went on to tell of how he was skidooing across a vast, frozen wilderness with this friend, in Toronto, in the middle of July.
What a hoot.

I categorize such stories as propaganda and have no patience with them.

P.S. Coastal British Columbia has a lovely, moderate climate, if you're ever inclined to move. :-)

[Georgia]

Hi Big_Lefty:

I'll answer your question and since you still won't answer mine without the double talk, I'll answer my own question at the same time yours for you by proxy:

do not know if the US government can run health care for less cost and more efficiently than the private sector. (Snip) Why do you think it isn't possible?

Simple. Government track of horrible fiscal irresponsiblility. Incredible amounts of wasteful spending on all levels and pork on all levels.
If they can't run Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare responsibly or efficiently they can't be trusted with the physical health of the Nation.

That is an excellent case for reducing military spending, which is responsible for much of the debt. What case are you claiming to have made?

No need to change the subject, which is the health care reform bill and not military spending, that is another thread.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
I am counting 1 Million dollars of new debt about every 2.5 seconds, going on a Billion just since my last post.

It is simple mathematics. Implimenting such a social program is fiscally irresponsible. (But nothing new for our Imperial Federal Government)

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: big_lefty The fact remains that other nations have both public and private insurance, so the end of private health insurance is obviously not inevitable. Upon what do you base your prediction?

Two things.

One, my taxes will go up to pay for the new plan. I won't be able to afford to pay those taxes plus my current policy. Since the new taxes will be mandatory, many people will be forced to drop their current health coverage. That alone could mark the demise of private health insurance.

Two, Section 102 of the new bill appears to place severe restrictions on grandfathering current policies, and also appears to require new policies to meet the same standards as the government run program. Since the government has no requirement of profitability, competition will be adversely affected.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: big_lefty That is an excellent case for reducing military spending, which is responsible for much of the debt. What case are you claiming to have made?

You do know that Medicare/Medicaid budget is the larger than the military budget?

Add Social Security and you have nearly 42% of the budget.

[Georgia]

Hi NoJingo:

Your cousin had to wait and suffer for three weeks because he was too lazy to make an appointment with his doctor.

That was not the case. My relative did not know what the delay was, but was not self inflicted as you assume.

Here in the USA where we have the best healthcare in the world, your kid would have to suffer if you can't afford to see a doctor, but don't fear, if your kid gets REALLY sick you can take him to the ER. - No, you didn't say that right?

I worked repairing office machines back in 1993. I made only $11.75/hr, very close to poverty rate and owned nothing but basic neccessities. Our highest value item was a 7 year old car.

My wife was 8 months pregnant and I lost my job and so my insurance.
We went to the Human and Social Services right away, and my wife was immediately put on Medicaid, paying 100% of her doctors visits, the delivery, post delivery and both her and our new son's doctors visits were covered for 1 year after delivery.

The current system worked for our family without the need for for a Federal takeover.

A couple years later I was still making about $2,500/month and needed insurance to cover our (Then) family of 4. My employer at the time was enrolled in a Kaiser plan but we employees paid 100% of the premium.

I was paying about $800/mo for a Kaiser family plan and our family had to make some choices. Ultimately we choose the responsible decision and kept the insurance instead of living a life style we couldn't afford.

There are often choices already available in the system today, it's just many don't want to make the difficult choices in their lives.
I"d rather make those choices myself rather than a rationing czar 2,000 miles away.

The U.S. governemnt is fiscally irresponsible and thank you for making my case in the following examples:

Canada has less debt

You are exactly right. I count three sets of zeros instead of the U.S's twelve:
Canada's National Debt Clock : The Canadian Taxpayers Federation Bravo to Canada for a more responsible government!

higher HS graduation rate

Canada was almost 10% in 2004-05 and U.S. about about 18% in 2006 using google search.
Education in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Cost per K-12 student is more than) $11,000 (in U.S. currency). [61] Despite this high level of funding, according to the OECD, U.S. public schools lag behind the schools of other developed countries in the areas of reading, math, and science.

I live near Atlanta, Georgia and the Atlanta school system spends around $16,000 per student and still has huge budget deficits and drop-out rates are only 2nd in the nation. Clayton county school district of Atlanta is so bad it even lost it's accreditation last fall and currently operating on a probationary condition.
The districts are crying for even MORE money. Shame on them !!!

Again it all shows the financial irresponsiblity, ineptitude and lack of wisdom in the Federal government, and most U.S. govenrment entitlement programs in general.

Yet, some cry for an Imperial Federal healthcare system to hold your very life in their hands.

Too bad it's so cold up there or I'd be typing this from that side of the border.

It's beautiful this time of year, and they have all the luxuries including warm coats and heaters for the cold months. I'm sure they would welcome your citizenship. You could enjoy their free health care, too.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Two things. One, my taxes will go up to pay for the new plan. I won't be able to afford to pay those taxes plus my current policy. Since the new taxes will be mandatory, many people will be forced to drop their current health coverage. That alone could mark the demise of private health insurance.

If you can't get by on $250,000 a year then I don't know what to tell you. But something tells me that you don't make that much and therefore wouldn't have any tax increase.

Two, Section 102 of the new bill appears to place severe restrictions on grandfathering current policies, and also appears to require new policies to meet the same standards as the government run program. Since the government has no requirement of profitability, competition will be adversely affected.

Who cares, the insurance companies don't have competition now and the American people suffer for it, I don't see any insurance execs crying for the people, so why should the people cry for them? Like every other industry which is adversely effected by changing times, they will have to find some other way of fleecing the populace... I'm sure they'll figure it out.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo If you can't get by on $250,000 a year then I don't know what to tell you. But something tells me that you don't make that much and therefore wouldn't have any tax increase.

You actually believe that taxes aren't going to go up for people making less than 250k??

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Who cares, the insurance companies don't have competition now and the American people suffer for it, I don't see any insurance execs crying for the people, so why should the people cry for them? Like every other industry which is adversely effected by changing times, they will have to find some other way of fleecing the populace... I'm sure they'll figure it out.

And I'm perfectly satisfied with the insurance coverage I currently have. Why should I cry for people that aren't? Like everyone else adversely effected by changing times, they will just have to find some other way to get medical care. I'm sure they'll figure it out.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Apeman81 You do know that Medicare/Medicaid budget is the larger than the military budget? Add Social Security and you have nearly 42% of the budget.

That's true if you include SCHIP, and not by much.
Medicare/Medicaid and SCHIP- 21% of spending for 2009.
Military-20%.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7750.pdf

But even that is misleading, because most of the military budget is probably not reflected in the official stats. According to the Center For Defense Information, it doesn't include much of the costs of the two current wars, homeland security, secret spending related to national security, nuclear weapons research, interest on the debt from past military expenditures, programs under Veteran's Affairs, and other programs which, while not under the Defense Department budget, are still related to the military. They claim it's actually 51% of spending.

Re; Medicare/ Medicaid-I suspect those programs could go and be replaced by the new plan.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Georgia Hi Big_Lefty: I'll answer your question and since you still won't answer mine without the double talk, I'll answer my own question at the same time yours for you by proxy: Simple. Government track of horrible fiscal irresponsiblility. Incredible amounts of wasteful spending on all levels and pork on all levels. If they can't run Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare responsibly or efficiently they can't be trusted with the physical health of the Nation. No need to change the subject, which is the health care reform bill and not military spending, that is another thread. U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time I am counting 1 Million dollars of new debt about every 2.5 seconds, going on a Billion just since my last post. It is simple mathematics. Implimenting such a social program is fiscally irresponsible. (But nothing new for our Imperial Federal Government)

Georgia, I don't appreciate your false accusations. I did answer your question as best I possibly could, I did not use double talk, and I did not change the subject. You wanted to know how I think health care could be funded, and my answer is by taking some of the pork from the military budget.
It's wholly relevant to the issue that you raised about fiscal responsibility and how to pay for health care.

I will rephrase my question and add a related one, as it wasn't clear in my last post;
I understand that you believe the US government to be fiscally irresponsible, but do you believe it is not ~possible~ for it to be otherwise?
Do you trust them with defense? Policing and the courts? Roads, sewers, and other infrastructure? Are you in favor of privatizing those services?

You still have not answered many of my previous questions to you.
Somehow, I can resist the temptation to answer them myself "by proxy".

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Zeebadee Two things. One, my taxes will go up to pay for the new plan. I won't be able to afford to pay those taxes plus my current policy. Since the new taxes will be mandatory, many people will be forced to drop their current health coverage. That alone could mark the demise of private health insurance. Two, Section 102 of the new bill appears to place severe restrictions on grandfathering current policies, and also appears to require new policies to meet the same standards as the government run program. Since the government has no requirement of profitability, competition will be adversely affected.

Your taxes will go up anyway, eventually, to pay off the national debt, so get ready for it.

You're looking at this a@@backwards. The whole point of the plan is to help you to get affordable coverage, yet you're claiming you won't be able to afford coverage because of the plan. If your current premiums are that unreasonable, simply drop that coverage for a gov't approved plan.

What severe restrictions do you refer to?

[Georgia]

Hi Big_Lefty:

Do you trust them with defense? Policing and the courts? Roads, sewers, and other infrastructure? Are you in favor of privatizing those services?

Trust them to be fiscally responsible with these items? No.
Some services could and already are be privatized such as water, sewer, gas and electric.

You still have not answered many of my previous questions to you.

Can you be more specific?

May I ask you a question?
Suppose your 80 year old mother requires a major, costly operation to correct an arthritic, non-life threatening condition.

Would you trust the Obama health plan to carry out the operation?

Also,
If I may interject in your other conversation:

Your taxes will go up anyway, eventually, to pay off the national debt, so get ready for it.

Wow that's one of the first things I've read of yours that makes sense.
Some still believe nobody's taxes are going up with less than $250/yr.

[rmnunez]

Obama is a disappointment, he is a better campaigner than president, he sold the idea he could lead, but really can’t do the job very well. Obama is like Carter, another great candidate who turned out to be a lousy president. Obama’s poor leadership was evident early on, when he pushed through the poorly written stimulus bill riddled with earmarks. That bill was passed 244 in favour (all Democrats) and 188 opposed (all Republicans). Obama promised bipartisanship, but he certainly hasn’t delivered. Those who blame this on unwilling and contrarian Republicans should think about Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel who’ve both clearly conveyed the idea whatever they want will be accomplished with or without Republicans.

Republicans know Obama’s is misled by overly ambitious Democrats who want to accomplish all their ideological goals held back under Republican rule. They also know fulfilling lefty wish lists in the middle of a recession is a terrible mistake because it will delay restoring the economy, be fiscally unbearable and require excessive reductions in other expenditures.

We can expect to see the healthcare reform bill passed in Congress and the Senate by Democrats alone, the same is likely for the global warming bill with its carbon cap and trade and the immigration reform bill Obama also promised. I’m not sure how many of these he’ll get done before midterm elections, but once those are done he will lose his majorities and Republicans will just put the brakes on anything else. Its easy to prognosticate this since the bills proposed will look like the stimulus bill (huge, very expensive, hurried through unread and full of earmarked pork).

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: big_lefty You're looking at this a@@backwards. The whole point of the plan is to help you to get affordable coverage, yet you're claiming you won't be able to afford coverage because of the plan. If your current premiums are that unreasonable, simply drop that coverage for a gov't approved plan.

I'm claiming that I won't be able to afford BOTH plans, and since the government plan will be mandatory, I'll be forced to drop what I currently have. My current premiums are fine, and I'm very happy with the care and service I get from my health care provider. I don't want to drop my current coverage and get coverage from a "government approved" plan.

Quote by: big_lefty What severe restrictions do you refer to?

The main restriction on grandfathering a current policy seems to be that if anything changes in it, the new policy will have to adhere to the "government approved" standards in effect at that time.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: rmnunez Obama is a disappointment, he is a better campaigner than president, he sold the idea he could lead, but really can’t do the job very well. Obama is like Carter, another great candidate who turned out to be a lousy president. Obama’s poor leadership was evident early on, when he pushed through the poorly written stimulus bill riddled with earmarks. That bill was passed 244 in favour (all Democrats) and 188 opposed (all Republicans). Obama promised bipartisanship, but he certainly hasn’t delivered. Those who blame this on unwilling and contrarian Republicans should think about Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel who’ve both clearly conveyed the idea whatever they want will be accomplished with or without Republicans. Republicans know Obama’s is misled by overly ambitious Democrats who want to accomplish all their ideological goals held back under Republican rule. They also know fulfilling lefty wish lists in the middle of a recession is a terrible mistake because it will delay restoring the economy, be fiscally unbearable and require excessive reductions in other expenditures. We can expect to see the healthcare reform bill passed in Congress and the Senate by Democrats alone, the same is likely for the global warming bill with its carbon cap and trade and the immigration reform bill Obama also promised. I’m not sure how many of these he’ll get done before midterm elections, but once those are done he will lose his majorities and Republicans will just put the brakes on anything else. Its easy to prognosticate this since the bills proposed will look like the stimulus bill (huge, very expensive, hurried through unread and full of earmarked pork).

Good analysis. I agree that Obama is a disappointment. I expected him to be smarter and at least get some good advice from some experienced DC policy makers...but he has embarrassed himself so often now he would already be a running joke worse than Biden if we actually had a watchdog instead of a lapdog media. Obmam's stupid missteps are now legendary, i.e. announcing that Gitmo would close in a year (a whopper), the Timmy Geithner appointment making a tax cheat head of the IRS,and the constant and ridiculous appointments of czars just to name a few stupid moves.

Now we have the Health Care debacle and the video of Obama saying he was FOR single payer Government health care

YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance

and him saying now that he was never for it. This is getting into the embarassing John Kerry zone of "I voted for it before I voted against it" which sank his campaing in 2004

I am not so sure though about him getting the health care reform he wants . The tide is rapidly turning against Obama as he drops this week in the Rassmusson poll to 48% Americans approving his job performance. (George Bush in August 2001 was still in the 55% to 59% job approval in the August after his inauguration and that was before Sept 2001 where approval shot to 85% to 90% immediately after 9-11.)

Obama and Democrats have completely misread the American electorate.

USATODAY.com
A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 88 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system.

Americans didn't want a socialized or single payer system, they wanted to have everything as good as it currently is ...... but TO PAY LESS for it. Obama orignally pushed the false promise that Obamacare would cost less....a pipe dream considering the abysmal history of the US Feds ever lowering ANY costs in any program. The US government serially miss estimates the costs of programs and everybody in the country knows it.

But after June, Obama WENT OFF MESSAGE about government health being cheaper and leaks came out from the White House about how the administration is not taking anything "off the table" in terms of tax increases. So. "Is it going to be cheaper? or is it "You just won't have to pay more since we will stick the increased costs of it to the upper middle class?"

Then he made the mistake of putting a time stamp on this Health Care Reform Bill saying that he wanted something on his desk to sign by the first week of August and that one made him look like an out-of-touch fool since everybody knew that was never going to happen.. Don't be surprised if the end result is something completely watered down or postponed until next year (like Immigration Reform.)

[rmnunez]

Apparently the "public option" could be dropped from the healthcare reform proposal:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory. Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own. With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims. "I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing." Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice. "What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday. A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets. "All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it." It's hardly the same rhetoric Obama employed during a constant, personal campaign for legislation. "I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest," Obama said in July. White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

So I guess the town halls are having impact.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Apparently the "public option" could be dropped from the healthcare reform proposal: So I guess the town halls are having impact.

From your link:

"With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims."

Subsidized competition from the taxpayers still leaves us who choose to stay with our current policies paying twice for coverage. Exactly how is receiving 3-4 billion dollars from the government going to make these "co-ops" independent??

BTW, we are in rare basic agreement with your post #195.

[rmnunez]

“It would be very, very difficult,” to support a bill that lacked a public health insurance option, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “because, without the public option, we’ll have the same number of people uninsured. If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they’d be insured.

People without employer-provided coverage who cannot pay the premiums on their own are of no interest to health insurance companies.

Johnson added that “an option that would give the private insurance companies a little competition” is “the only way” to be sure that insurance is available to low income people and people without employer-provided coverage.

Health insurers aren't interested in providing coverage for people who can't afford their premiums.

Johnson also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that House Democrats have already expressed their desire for a public option to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and even suggested that Pelosi inform the White House that the absence of the public option could be a deal breaker for the House Democratic Caucus. CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - TX Dem: Bill without public option ‘would be very, very difficult’ « - Blogs from CNN.com

If Democrats won't support a bill unless it includes a public option and Republicans will oppose a bill that includes said option, likely a bill with the public option will be passed by the majority.