Health Care Debate
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 . . . .
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
...you'd be arrested by the Feds, just like kathaksung...Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I've just started watching it....how long is this meeting scheduled to run?
Six hours, I think.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
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.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
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?
Last edited by GGT; 02-25-2010 at 08:35 PM. Reason: *
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.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?
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.
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....
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
This how the "best system" works:
Health reform website: Your Stories
If it is the best system, why going elsewhere?“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 tourismMedical tourism is booming as health care costs in developed countries spiral upward.
And this is what the "best system" does to US jobs.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
"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.
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.
He needs to be rehearsed.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
Last edited by EyeKhan; 02-26-2010 at 01:55 PM.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
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.....
[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
Last edited by GGT; 02-25-2010 at 11:10 PM.
Health problems seen as result of lack of responsibility:
- Victims of accidents and terrorists attacks lacked responsibility. They should be more responsible and stay away from terrorists and accidents.
- Victims of diseases caused by genetic problems that come from family's past are not responsible. They should not have born under such family.
- Elders are not responsible because aging is the result of lack of responsibility as they did not stay young.
- Children are not responsible when they suffer accidents, they should not play and they should not do exercise that may expose them to accidents.
- Soldiers are not responsible because they enlisted for war that causes health problems.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
PS you can neutralise the drug-interaction problems by CT-ing them once a year!!
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Only if they're insured.
good god we should be fighting universal healthcare in that case...
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
UK has it, even Costa Rica (a third world country) has it.
I was just wondering what my opinion would have been when the US was legislating Social Security and/or Medicare.
/random thought
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?Maybe Republicans need to review their voting records.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
As far as I can tell, the only ones calling Obama a SSSocialist are the Republicans. That's why I worded it that way.So now we assume that something is not socialist if it enjoys Republican support?
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.)
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.
To clarify my post, the cost reductions I referred to were insurance premiums.
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.
It was purely an analogy of cost distribution.
Your analogy lacks a few elements of health care which the car analogy does not. =)
1. Spreading health care to everyone with disregard for the health needs of people not only puts an unfair burden on young people (or I daresay healthier people), but it also makes people go to the doctor more often than they need and do more expensive procedures than they need. It's free, after all. This is proven in many contexts, including Soviet Russia (in terms of jobs that pay a flat rate regardless of peoples' efforts) -- when people CAN get something for free, they WILL -- except the taxpayer is paying for the waste. The alternative to this is a government bureaucracy set up to judge when you can get health care, which is what liberlulz have always claimed will never happen. A huge and inefficient government bureaucracy is the ONLY way to keep costs from spiraling insanely out of control. Completely free public health care is simply economically untenable.
*Insurance*, instead of "free healthcare lulz!" for everyone? That's a different matter.
For "free" insurance, use a scale AND DON'T INCLUDE ILLEGALS. For most cases (unemployed or **SEVERELY** disabled people (not just the current whimsical legal definition of "disabled") , only give a set number of free doctor's visits a year, plus various required medications and equipment (that required for the patient), and still add a co-pay requirement to some visits or pills.
Also, DON'T INCLUDE THINGS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE, like baby food!
I think Republicans would go along with this, if Democrats just agreed to (1) Tort reform, (2) free and unrestricted insurance company competition across state lines, and (I forgot the third thing that Republicans [and not just myself] wanted, so I'll add the one I would want) (3) much higher fines and penalties for insurance companies that try to skip out on their customers' claims by using obscure boilerplate contract terms.
Hope it works out for you. Means you won't be drinking beer anymore...?
So you're in favor of SCHIPs, WIC and foodstamps? And allowing children on parents' insurance policies until age 21? Maybe public-funded college too?Do I say the same for public education.... no, because most children cannot make choices that affect their upbringing.
They're in your insurance pool, they're your neighbors, they share the road and the health system, the dumbasses. Your utopian society can't separate individuals from the group, no matter how hard you try.Why should I subsidize some dumbasses behavior? You ride your bike without a helmet, you are on your own pal.
Based on that, your employer should kick you out of their group insurance, since your diabetes "punishes" everyone in the pool. To be consistent about it, you should be buying your own individual policy, paying a much higher premium, full fee cash OOP for every office visit, market price for every medication.
Maybe your employer should do away with their insurance benefit altogether, so that cost won't trickle down to the consumer in higher airline tickets? Why should we have to pay higher prices to fly, when it's padded with your benefits and not simply work performance/value? I like how you can be 'charitable' with my money, when it goes into your pocket.
Sure, but there are different COSTS and prices. Insurance premiums, medical services (consumer and provider), entitlement programs, subsidies----whole fruit basket! The Summit tried to address this, can't be done in 6-7 hours.
The biggest COST I referred to was a societal one; if millions are unhealthy they can't be productive. If they can't get care it drags us all down. Hard to niche or measure what kind of nation we want to be, but I know we shouldn't let people suffer or die (or go bankrupt) just because they can't pay for treatment or buy insurance.
I listed the top 5 ideas that came from the Summit (from my POV)<snip>
I think Republicans would go along with this, if Democrats just agreed to (1) Tort reform, (2) free and unrestricted insurance company competition across state lines, and (I forgot the third thing that Republicans [and not just myself] wanted, so I'll add the one I would want) (3) much higher fines and penalties for insurance companies that try to skip out on their customers' claims by using obscure boilerplate contract terms.
If they're all hell bent on seeing Care = Insurance, then we need to reform that industry. (Cracky, that's why the anti-trust laws matter.)
If Republicans want to have any credibility, they'll stop saying how great Medicaid and Medicare are, but anything else is SSSocialism or wealth re-distribution. They can't be alarmists clanging the liberty bell about guv'ment intervention, while keeping our whole system under Insurance Industry's (or Big Pharma's) big fat thumbs.
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
Congratulations America
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.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 worldThat must mean we have better healthcare.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
