|
The smoke is getting thick and the mirrors are blinding while the important question is left undiscussed: should we all move to a beach in the Bahamas until this crap is over?
On one side is Sarah Palin writing on her Facebook page and Sen. Chuck Grassley, both using misrepresentation and FUD instead of discussing solutions to the real problems that exist in the current system.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is warning that Americans should be worried about an “end of life” provision in the House health care bill.
“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said Wednesday during a town hall in Winterset, Iowa. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
On the other is Howard Dean who wants retribution against Democrats who question the President’s idiotic mess of a health plan and don’t vote for it.
Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean fired one of the clearest warning shots at hesitant Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, insisting that if the party was unable to produce a health care bill with a public plan, there would be electoral consequences.
“I do think there will be primaries as the result of all this, if the bill doesn’t pass with a public option,” Dean said, in a phone interview with the Huffington Post.
The former Vermont governor added the caveat that he thought “cooler heads” would ultimately prevail and that a government run option for insurance coverage would be passed. But his remarks are some of the most threatening yet to be directed at Democrats from within the party.
some enlightening reading for the “obama is trying to kill us all” crowd (not that theyll pay the least bit of attention)
and in case your wondering the republican senators who added the amendment specifically to add end of life care are susan collins and jay rockefeller – google them
Revere #78 – I think most people on here understand that the “End of Life” squads are not legislated to stop the provision of medical care but to help the terminal and aged to decide how they want things to go when their candle burns too short. We’ve always done it (well, some of us). It’s just fun to talk about in exaggerated terms.
Obama promising health care negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN so that the public will be a part of the conversation.
Obama saying he won’t be able to ELIMINATE employer coverage / private insurance immediately (due to a 10 to 20 year transition process)
>We single-payer liberals believe we can reduce costs by getting everyone insured, lowering the per-person costs.
You would have to lower per-person costs more than the amount you’ve increased the total pool, otherwise your costs have gone up. Plus the cost to government will go up even more, as you are replacing private payments with government payments.
>We also believe that taking the huge profit out of insurance means lower premiums.
Government has its own higher costs.
Many hospitals are non-profit. I don’t know why the focus is on insurance instead of health care, other than having a convenient villain.
>We also believe ending the vastly-more-expensive use of emergency rooms for primary care will save money.
The emergency room usage is a small portion of health care costs. I was surprised myself when I read this. I’ll see if I can find a link to it.
>We believe that allowing the government to negotiate the price of drugs will reduce that cost.
If the government is setting prices low, then you are killing the incentive for developing new drugs.
>We also believe that paying for outcomes rather than more and more procedures will lower the costs.
I think so, but it will also give providers an incentive to give less care.
>We believe that a “government option” will bring REAL competitiveness to the insurance companies.
A government option that isn’t run at cost isn’t real competition, the same way the Post Office has to be bailed out all the time. If the government services are free, then very few people will keep their private insurance.
The real effect is to make private insurance not viable, except for the wealthiest who will buy ‘premium’ care. Or are you going to ban that as well?
>And, yes, believe-it-or-not, we believe that tort reform could lower the costs by a couple of percent.
Haven’t seen that in any plans so far. I think it could have a larger effect. Here your point about outcomes comes into play. Many extra procedures are done or at least recommended just in case. For the vast majority of people, they are not needed.
# whatever, bobbo,
A couple of small points about comparing a government service to a private sector service. You can’t really make a price comparison because the government service is supported by your tax dollars. So, a post isn’t really 44 (it went up a cent while you weren’t watching
cents, it’s 44 cents plus what ever part of your taxes helped pay for the service. Making this calculation is a little vague because 50 percent of us don’t pay federal tax meaning the rest of us are actually paying twice what we would pay if everyone were paying. Then how do you figure the support of the service; do you only count any department that wouldn’t exist if not for the USPO? Do you add in any other support service done by other departments that assist the service (ie GAO audits, etc)?
Second, you probably want to compare the same kind of delivery. It cost 4.95 to guarantee (priority mail) that a one ounce letter sent Friday gets to it’s destination using the USPO. Fed Ex charges 19.63. As you know Fed Ex doesn’t offer regular mail, that’s a government monopoly.
A third point I would make is that once a price is set arbitrarily (44 cents) then I believe by definition it’s not open to competition making a price comparison illogical. In other words that price doesn’t really reflect what it costs you for the service.
I think that it will be the same with healthcare. There will only be the price you pay and the cost will be hidden from you. Not through any conspiracy, but because it’s the nature of government programs. I think that, just like every other government service ever created, it will cost way more than we will know.
#79 &81 revere
Nice that you bothered to look it up but the senate version that amendment has been pulled as of yesterday but that isn’t what we are talking about anyway. It is HB3200 and the section wasn’t added as an amendment and it is still there. Try reading it before interjecting. If you find it then point out to me where I’m wrong.
# 84 MikeN – You WON’T see anything about tort reform during this debate. Dear Barry has ruled it out in an address to the AMA. It’s the one thing that could be done quickly and simply but would, unfortunately, adversely affect the income of the liberal bar.
#85–gooddebate==thanks. Isn’t it more true than false that the USPO pays its own way as a freestanding entity? The 44cents is not arbitrary but what it costs to break even even after being forced to carry all the crap/bulk/congressional mail they would not do if truly set on a “business model?”
Anyway, the “details” are not THAT important. When one judges X “better than Y, its good to have the debate we might on the issue.
“Most Mail” is not handled by the private carriers and they do charge quite a premium for it. Many analytical factors there line up with the healthcare analysis.
What is kinda funny is that “Death Panels” actually would be a very good thing. Shine light on the issues with the truth. The Oregon Model.
bobbo – I do believe you can now be put in the category of name calling. And your debate approach is less than appealing to those that you would try to sway opinion with.
Again, please explain why you trust the government to handle our health so much better, for all citizens, at lower cost when the track record points to government inefficiency, corruption and waste.
I understand you believe this is the best opportunity. But you are handing over a significant portion of America’s GDP to a group of bureaucrats that only look out for themselves, their patrons and their “legacy”. They do not deserve such powers.
Why is Big Pharma so supportive of reducing costs? Because deals have already been cut. Think GM management. They could give a crap about anything long term. Just given them their contracted “bonus”.
I will repeat this – let Congress and the President sign up for the same plan they are proposing for you and I. That would be convincing and true leadership.
Instead they approach this like Home Shopping Network. BUY NOW! HURRY! THIS IS A LIMITED TIME OFFER! But with no money back guarantee…
#89–evil==repetition does not add a thing.
bobbo,
ditto. or answer the questions.
It may not be a total solution but I still maintain an assigned risk insurance program would be superior. If you want to be the next Blue Cross fine; go out and aggressively pursue IBM as your group, But, you gotta put your name in the assigned risk pool, too, and the next unemployed hobo that wants health insurance gets in. The USGov pays a set premium and regulatory authorities make sure you aren’t skimping. Rates would be subject to review by a “public utilities” commission – after all, if you want universal care it does become a utility, sort of. Combine that with tort reform and limiting care for foreign nationals. You don’t turn them away: everyone is entitled to emergency care. But, as soon as they are stable, off they go back to Baklava or whatever pastry they come from.
It’s not a complete solution but it would go a very long way.
#92 – Animby
And so it becomes a meat grinder. In ya go, out ya go.
And out goes innovation and the ability to choose better care.
I work hard, pay a premium and expect healthcare better than down at the clinic. While it would suck to have to be at the clinic, at least it’s available as well as the ER for anyone and everyone – even today. Can’t say the same for most of the world.
And before anyone says I am an elitist that doesn’t deserve my choice, I work damned hard. There were days when the clinic was my only choice. And I choose to work for something better. No handouts here.
Bobbo, both the Post Office and Amtrak every so often go to Congress to ask for more money, and the commissioners usually say if they dont get it they will have to shut down the following routes/post offices.
#92–Animby==anything to change the system, keep working out the bumps, is ok with me. I think your recognition of a utility is on point==that point being that “insurance” should have nothing to do with the way most people get their utility services. Efficiencies/ability to better serve will come when the ACTUAL DELIVERY SYSTEM is changed. I’m thinking nurses doing more, more outreach, more walk in clinics. Actual delivery of needed service rather than focusing on payment mechanisms.
#93–Evil==I also agree that we just ought to get real and admit to various levels/tiers of service. Rich people should always get better service than poor. I just don’t think poor people/working poor/newly unemployed should get ZERO care. There are lots of other approaches that will actually deliver healthcare===every other fricken country calling itself civilized does it for half our cost. Surely our greatest minds can take the best from their systems to some beneficial effect?
#94–Mike==so what? Add up all the revenue of the USPO and they deliver an admirable service FAR CHEAPER than the for profit counterparts. “PROFIT” is a waste of money in an efficient utility.
#95
“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. They are. It’s always the Post Office that has the problems.”
http://breitbart.tv/obama-its-the-post-office-thats-always-having-problems/
Would you like to try again and explain about the efficiency of the PO?
bobbo – I just don’t think poor people/working poor/newly unemployed should get ZERO care.
Name one U.S. citizen with ZERO healthcare. City and state too so I can list all healthcare providers they can go to and their benefits. It won’t be the Taj Mahal or service with a smile (it’s federal, state and local governments running the show after all), but their needs will be taken care of.
A day or two ago I commented how Big Pharm inevitably already had deals cut to get their support of Obama’s “reform’.
Just came across this at Huff Post.
So more of the same from our leader of Change. Doubt it? Think through why Big Pharm is suddenly for cutting their profits. The politicians will bluster on about change but only do enough to make it look like they did something listening not to you but to monied power brokers. Exactly why not to give them more power or money…
#96–Thomas==”Would you like to try again and explain about the efficiency of the PO?” /// .44 cents per letter.
#97–Evil==”Name one U.S. citizen with ZERO healthcare.” /// Well, there was the 60 min type report on the lady who needed a liver transplant, her Ins Co would not approve it, she rallied public/congressional support who got involved, and the Ins Co approved the transplant 2-3 days before she died.
Are you substituting Hospital Emergency Rooms limited to EMERGENCY CARE, with “healthcare?” Not the same thing at all.
Further, I have chronic care type coverage but not what I actually need: Dental. But, who needs teeth?
#98–Evil==don’t be redundant, just post as “your typical Repuglican.” The answer to bad government is not more Repuglicans in office, or Dems acting like “goverment is the problem Repuglicans, it is TRANSPARENCY.
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE.
#99
Swing and a miss. Clearly you are throwing a blind eye to the entire equation.
US Postal Service Restructuring Urgently Needed to Achieve Financial Viability
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09958t.pdf
The PO is expected to have a $7 billion loss this year and expected to have about $10 billion in debt. FedEx could take letters for $.44 if they had someone covering their $7 billion dollar loss.