Healthcare reform

[mr_genius]

It's on.

 

what does that mean?

[kapkomet]

what does that mean?

 

 

That they are ramming "health care reform" up our ass despite a majority of Americans hating this bill.

[mr_genius]

That they are ramming "health care reform" up our ass despite a majority of Americans hating this bill.

 

I thought they didn't have the votes for a 50% + 1 win in the house.

[jasonxctf]

That they are ramming "health care reform" up our ass despite a majority of Americans not knowing what is in the bill.

 

fixed that for you

[kapkomet]

fixed that for you

 

 

Ok, that's pretty much a given.

 

The majority of Americans do not want a comprehensive government bill. As I've said over and over, the bill is a government takeover of health care whether it's called "public option", "dumbass supercalifragiliciousexpelodocious screw you Americans", "eat s*** Republicans", or "Democrats know what's best no matter what". Call it anything you want, but people know enough to understand that it's a government takeover in a place where it doesn't belong. When the government MANDATES you to buy a specific good or service, it has gone too far.

[Y2HH]

Ok, that's pretty much a given.

 

The majority of Americans do not want a comprehensive government bill. As I've said over and over, the bill is a government takeover of health care whether it's called "public option", "dumbass supercalifragiliciousexpelodocious screw you Americans", "eat s*** Republicans", or "Democrats know what's best no matter what". Call it anything you want, but people know enough to understand that it's a government takeover in a place where it doesn't belong. When the government MANDATES you to buy a specific good or service, it has gone too far.

 

Finally, someone said it.

 

Surprisingly, I agree with this 110%.

[Texsox]

That they are ramming "health care reform" up our ass despite a majority of Americans hating this bill.

 

Since the Dems and Reps are still going through the motions of deciding what is and is not in the bill, I wonder how we can know what to like or hate? As we've seen in poll after poll the phrasing of the question determines if the majority likes or hates this bill.

 

I now this much . . .

 

• I know a lot of other countries have these types of systems in place.
• I know some suck and some are highly regarded.
• I know both sides are propagandist machines, with the GOP radio and TV network the best at spin.
• I know the US can run stuff better than any other country in the world.
• I have confidence in our ability to craft the greatest system in the world
• I know the Reps will hate it because they will not get credit.
• I know the Dems will try to make it seem like the greatest no matter how good or poor it is.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, that's pretty much a given.

 

The majority of Americans do not want a comprehensive government bill. As I've said over and over, the bill is a government takeover of health care whether it's called "public option", "dumbass supercalifragiliciousexpelodocious screw you Americans", "eat s*** Republicans", or "Democrats know what's best no matter what". Call it anything you want, but people know enough to understand that it's a government takeover in a place where it doesn't belong. When the government MANDATES you to buy a specific good or service, it has gone too far.

 

A majority are unhappy with the bill. That doesn't mean a majority don't want comprehensive reform; a lot of progressives are pissed that the bill doesn't go far enough. You've made this claim before and you've been corrected on it before.

[kapkomet]

A majority are unhappy with the bill. That doesn't mean a majority don't want comprehensive reform; a lot of progressives are pissed that the bill doesn't go far enough. You've made this claim before and you've been corrected on it before.

 

Most people want (yes MOST) the real issues fixed, not what they are doing now. And most people, even the "progressives", would be fine if the real stuff got fixed without the government taking it over or mandating pricing by health insurance companies. "Progressives" even realize that is only a fraction of the problem when they stop propogating the "government is better then the private sector" s*** we keep getting spewed out.

[StrangeSox]

Progressives, generally speaking, would not be happy with a private insurance fix; they want a government-run plan available to everyone.

 

And that still doesn't match up with what you were saying. Just like all of the dislike of Obama doesn't translate into support for Republican policies.

[kapkomet]

Progressives, generally speaking, would not be happy with a private insurance fix; they want a government-run plan available to everyone.

 

And that still doesn't match up with what you were saying. Just like all of the dislike of Obama doesn't translate into support for Republican policies.

 

Nevermind. Utopia for everyone, any time, any place. Our government needs to take care of that.

[Texsox]

Utopia for everyone, any time, any place.

 

Shouldn't that be the goal?

[StrangeSox]

Nevermind. Utopia for everyone, any time, any place. Our government needs to take care of that.

 

I didn't say it was a good idea, just that your repeated assertions about what the "majority" want are inaccurate.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, that's pretty much a given.

 

The majority of Americans do not want a comprehensive government bill. As I've said over and over, the bill is a government takeover of health care whether it's called "public option", "dumbass supercalifragiliciousexpelodocious screw you Americans", "eat s*** Republicans", or "Democrats know what's best no matter what". Call it anything you want, but people know enough to understand that it's a government takeover in a place where it doesn't belong. When the government MANDATES you to buy a specific good or service, it has gone too far.

Just curious... do you feel the same way about car insurance? I know its not exactly the same situation, but, it is in fact required to drive in any state. Do you like or dislike that? And for what reasons?

 

[Texsox]

I know you want to engage Kap in this, but one difference is mandatory car insurance only protects the other person. What the government mandates is coverage for who you may harm, not coverage to cover yourself. There is a direct out of pocket expense when an uninsured person is involved in an accident.

 

A person without health insurance who needs serious medical treatment only indirectly costs us money.

[Balta1701]

A person without health insurance who needs serious medical treatment only indirectly costs us money.

But those indirect costs are directly related to how broken our current system is.

[Texsox]

But those indirect costs are directly related to how broken our current system is.

 

I was speaking only to the comparison between government required car insurance and health insurance.

[southsider2k5]

Just curious... do you feel the same way about car insurance? I know its not exactly the same situation, but, it is in fact required to drive in any state. Do you like or dislike that? And for what reasons?

 

In order to drive, not completely required or else.

[kapkomet]

In order to drive, not completely required or else.

 

 

Car ownership is not mandatory, either.

[Balta1701]

Car ownership is not mandatory, either.

In a lot of cases, you can't live your life without it.

[kapkomet]

In a lot of cases, you can't live your life without it.

 

 

Really? Okay. Better get that government to step in and take over the car companies, then. Oh, wait a minute...

[Y2HH]

Really? Okay. Better get that government to step in and take over the car companies, then. Oh, wait a minute...

 

Actually, what we need to do since everyone *needs* a car is have the top 5% of income earners buy cars for the bottom 50%...really nice ones, like Porsche 911's or something...they deserve the same kind of car with the same speeds/amenities since it's necessary for everyday life and all...why should the rich people be the only ones capable of going faster?

 

The % in between the bottom 50% and the top 5%...well, f*** them...they'll be fine in their rusted Pintos.

 

Then, we make it mandatory for everyone to buy a car and car insurance, too. If they can't afford it, we'll just print some money and subsidize them...

Edited March 15, 2010 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0031401389.html

 

A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase.

 

You probably think that insuring the uninsured will dramatically improve the nation's health. The uninsured don't get care or don't get it soon enough. With insurance, they won't be shortchanged; they'll be healthier. Simple.

 

Think again. I've written before that expanding health insurance would result, at best, in modest health gains. Studies of insurance's effects on health are hard to perform. Some find benefits; others don't. Medicare's introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn't find gains. In the Atlantic recently, economics writer Megan McArdle examined the literature and emerged skeptical. Claims that the uninsured suffer tens of thousands of premature deaths are "open to question." Conceivably, the "lack of health insurance has no more impact on your health than lack of flood insurance," she writes.

 

 

[jasonxctf]

an AP summary of the current health care bill and its changes. Consumer based info.

 

IMMEDIATE CHANGES

 

Uninsured people with medical problems will have a workable alternative. The bill pumps $5 billion into high-risk insurance pools run by the states to provide coverage to those in frail health. Taxpayer-backed insurance won't be free, but premiums should be much lower than what's charged by private insurers willing to take those in poor health.

 

For people with private health insurance — about two-thirds of Americans — there would be some new safeguards. For example, insurers would be barred from placing lifetime dollar limits on coverage and from canceling policies except in cases of fraud. Children could stay on their parents' coverage until age 26.

 

THE SELF-EMPLOYED

 

Starting in 2014, self-employed people and those whose employers don't offer coverage would be able to pick a plan through a health insurance exchange, like a supermarket. It's modeled on the federal employee health program available to members of Congress, which offers a range of private insurance. Small businesses could also join the exchange.

 

More than 30 million people would buy their own coverage through state exchanges, and nearly 6 in 10 would be eligible for tax credits to help pay premiums. The aid would be generous for lower-income families, less so for those solidly in the middle class.

 

For example, a family of four making $44,000 would pay $2,763 in premiums, or about 6 percent of its income.

 

But a similar family making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That may be less than a mortgage, but it's more than a car payment.

 

Once the exchanges open, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance or pay a fine. Medicaid would be expanded to cover childless adults living near poverty.

 

People with employer-provided insurance would not see major changes. But if they lost their job, they'd be able to get coverage through the exchange.

 

SENIORS

 

Seniors have been understandably worried about the health care plan, since much of it is financed with Medicare cuts the government's own experts say could be unsustainable.

 

On the block are subsidies to private Medicare Advantage insurance plans, which now enroll about one-quarter of seniors. The government overpays the plans when compared to the cost of care under traditional Medicare. That largesse translates to lower out-of-pocket costs for seniors in the plans, and the bill could trigger an exodus from Medicare Advantage as insurers are forced to raise their rates to stay in business.

 

But seniors stand to gain as well. Obama would gradually close the coverage gap in the middle of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The so-called doughnut hole would start to shrink immediately, but it wouldn't be fully closed until 2020. In the meantime, seniors in the gap would get a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs.

 

The plan also improves preventive benefits for seniors in traditional Medicare.

 

DOCTORS

 

Primary care doctors and general surgeons practicing in underserved areas such as inner cities and rural communities would get a 10 percent bonus from Medicare. But the more significant changes for doctors would unfold slowly. The goal is to start rewarding doctors for keeping patients healthy, not just treating them when they get sick.

 

The plan would use Medicare as a testing ground for new ways of coordinating care for patients with multiple chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure, diabetes and heart problems, a common combination. Primary care doctors would become care managers for such patients, keeping close tabs on medications and basic health indicators.

 

Doctors and hospitals would be encouraged to band together in "accountable care organizations" modeled on the Mayo Clinic.

 

EMPLOYERS

 

Obama's plan wouldn't require employers to provide insurance to their workers, but it would hit them with a stiff fine if even one of their workers gets a federally subsidized coverage. Companies with 50 or fewer workers would be exempt, and those with 25 workers or fewer could get federal assistance.

 

But the fines could turn into a big headache for many employers, particularly since they may not be able to tell if their workers are getting benefits from the government. For example, a company with 100 employees that fails to provide coverage could face a fine of $140,000 under the plan Obama unveiled Feb. 22. Getting the bill from the IRS would become a dreaded moment for business owners.

 

INSURANCE COMPANIES

 

Health insurance companies would face unprecedented federal regulation and particularly close scrutiny of their bottom line. A fixed percentage of income from premiums would have to go to medical care, otherwise insurers would be forced to provide rebates to consumers. That share is 85 percent for large group plans, and 80 percent for plans in the small group and individual markets.

 

One of the central reforms of the bill won't start until 2014, when the exchanges open. From then on, insurers will not be able to turn away people with medical problems or charge them more.

[Cknolls]

Anyone else here get the feeling that this will wind up in the Supreme Court?