Printable View
I have this on live right now, Nancy Pelosi's talking about some sob stories from Michigan. Anyone else watching this?
An interesting observation: the President, the VP, the House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, the Minority Leaders, are all in the same room. :| I don't know about you, but if I were a terrorist . . . .
...you'd be arrested by the Feds, just like kathaksung...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I've just started watching it....how long is this meeting scheduled to run?
Six hours, I think.
Wonder how many senior citizens (and chronically ill) are watching this, since Medicare is on the hot seat....
I hope its a lot.
EDIT: 16 perscription drugs, on average. WTF? There is no way to determine the interactions with that many drugs.
Wouldn't doubt that number! Not only have physicians let go of primary care, they don't bother to ask patients those questions (takes too long, I guess?) or have a case manager. Even pharmacies don't do a good job of keeping track, assuming only one pharmacy is used.
Happens all the time. :(
*I wonder how much being said is actual fact instead of drama for the camera. Some of this we've discussed at the Other Place (The US has the BEST health care in the WORLD!....)
Medicare is 37 TRILLION in the hole? :eek:
One republican actually said that - the bottom line is the US has the best health system in the world and the American people don't want to mess that up! or some such.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I've listened to a few things off and on and there is a definitely strategy and list of talking points the republicans are using - I've heard it put out there, then major parts of it refuted dead on, only to be repeated again an hour later by a different senator. Those are the guys sitting there with printed copies of the bill in front of them for the "big government" effect. :rolleyes:
There was this hilarious exchange where John McCain complained about the 800k person exception to closing Medicare Advantage for seniors in Florida that must have been put in there to get support from congressmen in Florida. Obama said flatly he thought that was a legitimate complaint. McCain started waving his hands to press the attack then looked lost like he didn't know what to do with an agreement. The room got a chuckle out of it.... :up:
Ohh I missed that!
ps it was Boehner who made the comment about US being bestest. Not sure who retorted it's best for those in the room, for rich or poor, but no one in the middle, and maybe everyone deserves what congress has. ;)
Biden seemed a bit rehearsed and frenetic. Grassly appeared as an idiot (to me). But in general everyone is calm and polite.
Much of what these guys have been discussing is just what we've been discussing for a few years in the forum :)
Philosophical differences between parties, money number spinning, incremental change vs sweeping reform, free market competition with government regulation, national vs state goals, plus the whole Trust issue.
Republicans in general seem to want budget and tax reform, keeping the same system still run by Insurance but with a few mandates, and "start over". Democrats in general seem to want system reform, while keeping ties to Insurance, with broader/holistic goals. I'm trying to figure out if Obama and the dems are willing to agree to a few fast changes that everyone agrees with.....
This how the "best system" works:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Health reform website: Your Stories
If it is the best system, why going elsewhere?Quote:
“My wife and I are both self employed, she left a state job 2 years back when we moved to Florida where I had taken a consulting position, I have been self employed for 15 years. We no longer were entitled to the great health benefits we enjoyed when my wife worked for the state. The issue is that our son has a pre-existing condition and we are unable to get insurance coverage for him. yes it is possible to get this coverage but at the cost of going bankrupt! I am not against paying toward health care but I do take issue when a child of 7 years of age can not get coverage due to insurance companies refising on grounds of pre-existing conditions that he shows no signs off? If we are supposedly the most advanced and caring nation in the world then how come a 7 year old child is refused health care or can not afford health care due to the high cost? Shame on us. Reform is needed urgently to address this shameful situation in our country.”
– Stephen from Florida
FACTBOX: Five facts about medical tourism
Controversial couple dominates U.S. medical tourismQuote:
Medical tourism is booming as health care costs in developed countries spiral upward.
And this is what the "best system" does to US jobs.Quote:
These are heady days for the medical tourism industry. With U.S. healthcare prices spiraling upward, more and more insurers and individuals are looking abroad for treatment. By some estimates, 650,000 Americans will check into foreign hospitals from Mexico to Thailand this year.
Humana cutting workforce by 1,400 jobs in 2010
Quote:
"This regrettable but necessary reduction in our workforce is a direct result of Humana's need to align the size of our company with that of our membership," Humana Chief Executive Officer Mike McCallister said in a statement.
[Or WellPoint raising premiums by 29%]
Who can do the wrap-up before they read the news? ;)
1) Insurance reform is needed; regulation and/or mandates, including pre-existing/life time cap/recissions
2) New insurance exchanges for small business and individuals is an extension of freeee markets, not a government take-over
3) Who decides what is Baseline coverage, and how do they decide (criteria)?
4) Interstate purchases still need regulation so it's not a 'race to the bottom' to buy in a state with lax consumer protections
5) Tort reform and malpractice changes against CYA medicine
EDIT the other elephant was "Is health care a right, or a personal responsibility"
Someone said that our justice system revolves around a presumption that provides a public defender, and how is basic health care any different?.....hmmm
PS you can neutralise the drug-interaction problems by CT-ing them once a year!!
Only if they're insured. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
good god we should be fighting universal healthcare in that case...
I was just wondering what my opinion would have been when the US was legislating Social Security and/or Medicare.
/random thought
UK has it, even Costa Rica (a third world country) has it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Ok, I found it interesting how Obama made a mistake many posters make here. In an answer to a Republican Senator (I believe), he started by saying "I think we can agree, and that it isn't an ideological divide, that everyone supports some amount of regulation: think about what would happen if meat wasn't inspected by the government". Then he went on to say how insurance companies put people in different risk categories and price them accordingly; young people have low insurance rates and older people have high rates.
It seems that he then implied that there is not an ideological divide between forcing insurance companies to have one pool (or subsidizing high risk pools) and not forcing them (or not subsidizing). In the first argument (for regulation), there's no divide, but in the second it is an enormous unbridgeable divide.
What Obama meant (I think) is that we expect a certain degree of consumer safety regulation, from the food we eat to the meds we take, and it's not a SSSSocialist idea since even Republicans embrace some industry regulations for the benefit of the populace.
edit and oh yeah, then he made the correlation to COST: reducing costs can't happen if it's all the old and sick in one pool, and the young or healthy in another.....that's not ideological, that's fact.
So now we assume that something is not socialist if it enjoys Republican support? :bulb: Maybe Republicans need to review their voting records.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
As far as I can tell, the only ones calling Obama a SSSocialist are the Republicans. That's why I worded it that way. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
It's real funny that the same people who say there shouldn't be an american health care system are the ones who try to use the argument that the american health care system is the best in the world :)
ha ha, it would be funny if it weren't so NOT funny :(
All those very important people, from both parties, treat previous entitlements as sacred cows---meant only for the old or poor.
They're looking at the birth of our safety net (for post-war widows and orphan children) in the same way, even though our world has changed dramatically.
Yeah, well, our bobsled team didn't chicken out. :D That must mean we have better healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Er.... no, that's not fact... and it's incorrect. He even almost admitted that it's not efficient. Why should the old and young pay the same price, when they are buying different goods? Economically, it's like forcing everyone to pay the same for a car, but young people can only choose to buy a small car and old people can only choose to buy a luxury car. That doesn't make any sense. (I left out "sick" and "healthy" here because those are very subjective terms in this case.)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
That's forcing the young to subsidize the old, and that's not even factoring in any government subsidies.
The ideological part comes in when you put everyone in the same pool regardless of cost.
why is it worse to force the young to subsidise the old than it is to force the young to subsidise the young?
Because the proportion of young to old will fluctuate (currently decreasing) where as the proportion of young to young stays constant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
what about just making the healthy subsidise the unhealthy?
A healthcare proposal too big to succeed
It seems that now insurance companies come to say the problem is small.
It is like bankers saying that taxpayers are to be blamed for the crisis...
He needs to be rehearsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
"Start Over" is a red herring. Everyone in that room knows that starting over really means the end of health care reform and in practical terms the end the Obama Presidency's effectiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I heard that part. I'm not sure how there can be an ideological divide on risk pooling. That's how insurance works, isn't it? It can't work effectively any other way. If you put all the high risk folks in their own pool then the whole concept is defeated. While I agree if you have risky behavior and willfully neglect your own health, you ought to pay higher premium, its just not acceptable to put all the old people and anyone within a high risk group due to factors they can't control into a separate, very expensive group. The vast majority of healthy people are needed to balance that.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
If that's an ideological divide it must be simply expressed as: "I got mine, fuck everyone else." That's no way to run a nation. :down:
Its how insurance works, dude. Yeah, maybe sicker people should pay a little more, but if they are in their own pool, they can never keep up with all the costs. So the tax dollar will or they'll just die younger. Assuming we're not going back to letting the elderly just die when they can't pay, then what's the difference from keeping everyone in one pool? Its risk pooling in a different way - maybe this system lets insurance companies make a bigger profit? Yay! :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
To clarify my post, the cost reductions I referred to were insurance premiums.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Yes, it's a fact that the bigger the pool, the lower the premiums will average (spreads risk). Of course anything is higher than zero for those who pay no premium now, like the Invincible Young who have no coverage (it's too expensive).
I didn't watch the entire summit, but there was a part about "medical value". They make have discussed efficiency of the system or insurance industry that I missed. The ideological part comes in how to get everyone in the pool (tax? mandate?) but also if health care is a right or responsibility....
Your car buying analogy doesn't work very well--not everyone needs or wants a car, there are alternatives to transportation. It might work for insurance premiums and yes, the model used is all about hypothetical risk. I think the better analogy might be public education. If we've decided our society NEEDS educated citizens (and future workers) then we have to have schools open to everyone. Paid for by everyone, whether they have their own children or not. The value-added comes in future services everyone will need and use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
The young will some day be old. Then the generation behind will subsidize their higher health costs. And it progresses. Nobody's getting a free ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And we subisidize each other because we're a fucking nation. We pool our resources to get shit done. We do that with a huge array of things, why not health care? Who won't need health care at some point in their lives ffs? It's crazy to say "oh, that government ain't got nor right to make me help pay for some sick dude's medicince. fuck them." Huh????
Besides, for those who focus on fiscal policy only....the cost of doing nothing now is too high, tipping point's been reached.
We are ALL paying for this mish-mash piece-meal system currently in place. Insured folks are 'subsidizing' the uninsured as well as Medicare/Medicaid. Providers just move the billing and fees around to maximize recouping their costs. Prices of services go up about 10% per year, add in pharma and durable medical goods spiraling higher, Insurance adds administrative costs but not better service--- it's unsustainable.
The bigger cost of doing nothing falls to our society and nation as a whole. Talk about Death Panels....
People suffer higher premiums when people are more ill.
A mild illness may get serious if you wait.
It is cheaper to prevent than to react before a problem.
Economic accesibility of medical attention becomes a barrier not to wait.
Lifestyle and genetics have an influence. Genetics can't be changed.
Ironically those who are more ill are those who pay more. It is just like making the poor to pay more taxes.
It says that:
1.Hospitalls are not healing people properly
2.Ill people wait because they can't afford healthcare
3.Insurance companies are making money with genetical problems of people.
4.US system transfers the costs to those who are in need, not those who can pay.
5.The business of health is to have more ill people. Profit driven market is good when high demand is desirable. But in healthcare, hig hdemand means more ill people, which is undesirable.
This is why public systems like in UK, Canada and even a third world like Costa Rica work better than US. Childern mortality in US is at thrid world levels, and life expectancy is higher in Canada.
:confused: No, those who are 'more ill' with chronic disease or catastrophic injuries end up moving into Medicaid or disability. If their coverage is employer-based and they lose their job, after (expensive) COBRA runs out they qualify for assistance. They may keep their job but hit lifetime caps, facing recission. Small businesses are especially vulnerable to this mess and often can't offer the benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
In this whole health care debate I am starting to get the feeling that Republicans have moved or are slowly moving towards a position where they reject any sense of community. That of course is a valid position, if you're a libertarian, but it's kind of irreconcilable with the GOP's social conservatism and law and order identity.
The GOP have calculated that they have nothing to gain politically by supporting health care reform. It has nothing to do with policy, ideology, or what this country needs. They want power back and they know if they give Obama a win, of any kind but especially this, it hurts their chances of regaining Congress and the Presidency. If Obama fails here, his presidency is neutered for the duration, Democrats are guaranteed to lose congress in November, and the Republicans have a much better shot of limiting Obama to 1 term. Its cynical and its bad leadership, but its our reality.... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Someone should do a Case Study of Cheney's cardiac care history, then compare it to random same-aged men of average income with private insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Do we really need this discussion again?
Many people are unhealthy because of lifestyle choices THEY have themselves made. Overeating, smoking, unprotected sex...
In 2007, the US has over 20M People with diabetes. What is that attributed to? Well, when I go to the doctor the little sign says don't be fat and don't smoke.
Lung disease.... i guess I should have to pay extra taxes because uncle Johnny smoked his entire life?
Hogwash.
I don't want my hard earned money going to anybody.
You're forgetting that they're in Canada, a country with socialized health care :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Being