Healthcare reform

[Balta1701]

and apparently a lot of "fear mongering" Americans agree with me.

And I can cite polling data to say that a lot more Americans agree with me. Especially if you tell them some of the things actually in the bill, rather than screaming "Death Panels!" "Immy-gants!" Etc., which has been so bloody effective over the last month or so.

 

Of course...that's data.

[kapkomet]

And I can cite polling data to say that a lot more Americans agree with me. Especially if you tell them some of the things actually in the bill, rather than screaming "Death Panels!" "Immy-gants!" Etc., which has been so bloody effective over the last month or so.

 

Of course...that's data.

Oh, but wait, I keep being told that there's not a bill. Which way is it?

 

And "Immy-gants" are covered, and they shouldn't be. That's a problem. You just slapped citizens in the face.

 

And "Death Panels" - as I said, I even have a problem with that language, but read the 'Zeke Emanual article, and they bring that s*** on themselves by the crap he utters, especially since he effectively is leading this mess. That's "data" when they say it themselves - that hippacratic oath sucks balls and costs too much.

[Rex Kickass]

Oh, but wait, I keep being told that there's not a bill. Which way is it?

 

And "Immy-gants" are covered, and they shouldn't be. That's a problem. You just slapped citizens in the face.

 

And "Death Panels" - as I said, I even have a problem with that language, but read the 'Zeke Emanual article, and they bring that s*** on themselves by the crap he utters, especially since he effectively is leading this mess. That's "data" when they say it themselves - that hippacratic oath sucks balls and costs too much.

 

There's a section in the House Bill that you constantly rant about that specifically says that it won't cover undocumented workers. Specifically. But you'll discount that because that part of the bill won't be "enforceable" or "won't really count" or some other bulls*** you'll come up with to keep that section of your argument.

 

You reference a section of the bill that talks about not being able to enroll in any other existing private plan - although when I asked you what part of the bill this specifically references you didn't come up with an answer - when I found what I think is the same section of the bill that you reference (I think I even posted that section in this thread,) it appears to be a grandfather clause which simply says that private insurers won't be able to take new enrollees in existing plans that don't meet the same guidelines and rules about what policies can and can't exclude (pre-existing condition, recission, etc.) It doesn't say anything about prohibiting employers from swapping to a new private option or any of that. It just simply says that existing programs that don't comply with federal regulations established by this bill won't be able to have new members enroll. Unless you're referencing another part of the bill that I missed. If so, please provide the section number of the bill so that we all can see in black and white exactly what the scary government is trying to do to kill the insurance industry.

 

I believe, (and although I mostly skimmed the same bill you constantly reference and didn't read it in depth) also talked about Medicare and what it will and won't cover. It basically says that any public option - Medicare included will cover a living will consultation. That doesn't make having one mandatory.

 

Your argument about compromise is that Obama is only including tort reform in that bill if they get on board with a public option. But given that the Republican party has given no indication about what they would offer besides tort reform and a poorly defined co-op concept that hasn't been used on a large scale (and with not a lot of success) since the 1930s. Beyond that, there is very little in terms of actual ideas that they have provided besides "no." The last Republican with a real proposal on establishing more universal health care access was Nixon, and his idea was just to force all employers to provide healthcare regardless of size.

[EvilMonkey]

You reference a section of the bill that talks about not being able to enroll in any other existing private plan - although when I asked you what part of the bill this specifically references you didn't come up with an answer - when I found what I think is the same section of the bill that you reference (I think I even posted that section in this thread,) it appears to be a grandfather clause which simply says that private insurers won't be able to take new enrollees in existing plans that don't meet the same guidelines and rules about what policies can and can't exclude (pre-existing condition, recission, etc.) It doesn't say anything about prohibiting employers from swapping to a new private option or any of that. It just simply says that existing programs that don't comply with federal regulations established by this bill won't be able to have new members enroll. Unless you're referencing another part of the bill that I missed. If so, please provide the section number of the bill so that we all can see in black and white exactly what the scary government is trying to do to kill the insurance industry.

The grandfather section does state that if you are enrolled in a private plan, you CAn add new dependents. It also says that

"(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered

on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan." That means that unless the 'new' plan meets the government criteria, you can't offer that. How long until they make that criteria somethign that now private company can do and stay in business? (HB 3200, pg19, Sec 102)

 

This language immediatly follows "In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division"

 

Well, clause (iii) is this: (iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.

 

That puts the power completely in the Commissioner's hands as to what policies qualify, and what doesn't.

 

It also limits what the current private providers are able to do, such as chance a policy. if they change it too much, or in a way the Commish doesn't like, they no longer qualify for grandfather clause.

LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

 

 

Like a lot of bills, there is enough gray language in here to make a lwayer have an orgasm. bring a case up against a sympathetic judge and/or jury, you establish precident. Then you have just 'changed' the meaning to what you really wanted to say to begin with, without having to actually say that upfront.

[kapkomet]

There's a section in the House Bill that you constantly rant about that specifically says that it won't cover undocumented workers. Specifically. But you'll discount that because that part of the bill won't be "enforceable" or "won't really count" or some other bulls*** you'll come up with to keep that section of your argument.

 

You reference a section of the bill that talks about not being able to enroll in any other existing private plan - although when I asked you what part of the bill this specifically references you didn't come up with an answer - when I found what I think is the same section of the bill that you reference (I think I even posted that section in this thread,) it appears to be a grandfather clause which simply says that private insurers won't be able to take new enrollees in existing plans that don't meet the same guidelines and rules about what policies can and can't exclude (pre-existing condition, recission, etc.) It doesn't say anything about prohibiting employers from swapping to a new private option or any of that. It just simply says that existing programs that don't comply with federal regulations established by this bill won't be able to have new members enroll. Unless you're referencing another part of the bill that I missed. If so, please provide the section number of the bill so that we all can see in black and white exactly what the scary government is trying to do to kill the insurance industry.

 

I believe, (and although I mostly skimmed the same bill you constantly reference and didn't read it in depth) also talked about Medicare and what it will and won't cover. It basically says that any public option - Medicare included will cover a living will consultation. That doesn't make having one mandatory.

 

Your argument about compromise is that Obama is only including tort reform in that bill if they get on board with a public option. But given that the Republican party has given no indication about what they would offer besides tort reform and a poorly defined co-op concept that hasn't been used on a large scale (and with not a lot of success) since the 1930s. Beyond that, there is very little in terms of actual ideas that they have provided besides "no." The last Republican with a real proposal on establishing more universal health care access was Nixon, and his idea was just to force all employers to provide healthcare regardless of size.

Well, gee. That's called political suicide, since most republicans want left the hell alone and not a bunch of government assholes telling us what we can and cannot do.

 

Alpha answered some of the questions. And I've addressed over and over that the "death panel" thing is too far, IMO, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

 

I think I've posted this about 5 times in this thread, and I'll do it again.

 

You want real reform?

 

1 - Stop the employer provided insurance, provide incentive for individuals to get coverage in real pools and choices, and let people shop on their own instead of having to be forced to take employer covered insurance. That solves a lot of things. I'll MAYBE go into more depth here some other time, but I'm sure this is stupid and will be attacked ad hominem or ignored.

 

2 - Tort reform, but that horse is bloody - obviously it's such a piss in the bucket (even though it's admitted by all accounts to not be something really measureable unless we want to compare El Paso and McAllen). If you put in the system methods and real cost savings for actually practicing medicine in a meaningful way and not CYA, then we might get somewhere. By the way, I would like to point out regarding McAllen and El Paso, it IS a complete different demographic, and the way the codes are bundled has to do with the patients and the way they're seen. But again, that's only anecdotal, no "DATA" provided - I can just recall from having done medical coding and billing that there's a totally different way the systems are ran in the two cities. I might have made that up, though, just because I'm like that. I like spreading misinformation.

 

3 - R&D and pharma costs - there has to be a restructure here - although I will say that if you really want to do it right, get your damn R&D department to HQ in Switzerland and get it overwith - you'd save 20% right off the top, but that's neither here nor there. I am a free market guy - but the absolute free reign to set topside prices is ridiculous in this industry. Now, insurance pays a totally different amount, but the pipeline effect and the way money is made off these drugs, there's a huge problem there. HUGE. Again, I can share some industry secrets there because I've been in it.

 

4 - Get medicare and medicaid fixed the right way - before you take over the ENTIRE DAMN COUNTRY, fix the mess you've already started and bankrupted because you don't know how to run it. The only way to get there is to stagger the entrants and at some point, stop the programs or totally restructure how it's done. You can't just leave this - medicare/medicaid is already 30-40% of medical costs in the current health system. Fix that, you fix a lot of problems because that's a bench mark and already has a lot of influence of accepted drugs and procedures.

 

You can't have any of these without looking at the other. They're not separate. They have to be considered in total. You can fix the system with regulatory provisions (i.e. prexisting pools, etc.) without the damn government taking over the whole thing.

 

I know you liberals trust your government more then you trust "businesses" or the private sector, and for the life of me I cannot understand why you would trust a beauracracy that hasn't done s*** right in like, EVER. WOOT! Let's create MORE government positions to conduct medical reviews to determine what procedures and drugs the entire country will get. !!! YAY!!! I just will never, ever understand why your placement of trust is in someone like Barack Obama, rather then the free market system as a whole, if they would actually try and fix it the right way. (And I'm not naive enough to think TOTAL free market, of course you have to regulate it some - but that's not even a consideration, flowery language and all).

[Rex Kickass]

1 - Stop the employer provided insurance, provide incentive for individuals to get coverage in real pools and choices, and let people shop on their own instead of having to be forced to take employer covered insurance. That solves a lot of things. I'll MAYBE go into more depth here some other time, but I'm sure this is stupid and will be attacked ad hominem or ignored.

 

This isn't a bad idea in and of itself, but that choice does already exist. I spent 18 months with self-purchased health insurance. It was cheaper than my own work's option for a better plan than what it offers. There needs to be some method to make insurance available more easily without using your employer, including being able to deduct health insurance costs from your taxes, which is currently NOT possible if you insure outside the workplace.

 

2 - Tort reform, but that horse is bloody - obviously it's such a piss in the bucket (even though it's admitted by all accounts to not be something really measureable unless we want to compare El Paso and McAllen). If you put in the system methods and real cost savings for actually practicing medicine in a meaningful way and not CYA, then we might get somewhere. By the way, I would like to point out regarding McAllen and El Paso, it IS a complete different demographic, and the way the codes are bundled has to do with the patients and the way they're seen. But again, that's only anecdotal, no "DATA" provided - I can just recall from having done medical coding and billing that there's a totally different way the systems are ran in the two cities. I might have made that up, though, just because I'm like that. I like spreading misinformation.

 

I don't disagree that tort reform should be a part of health care reform. There should be some limits on medical malpractice claims - and maybe some method to separate medical tort claims from other tort claims, so that these cases go before a court that may be more knowledgeable about what considers malpractice than the average jury.

 

3 - R&D and pharma costs - there has to be a restructure here - although I will say that if you really want to do it right, get your damn R&D department to HQ in Switzerland and get it overwith - you'd save 20% right off the top, but that's neither here nor there. I am a free market guy - but the absolute free reign to set topside prices is ridiculous in this industry. Now, insurance pays a totally different amount, but the pipeline effect and the way money is made off these drugs, there's a huge problem there. HUGE. Again, I can share some industry secrets there because I've been in it.

 

From what I've read, Pharma has given up some in the current health care costs - about the only segment of the industry that has so far in this push for reform. I don't know too much about the details admittedly, but they've come to the table with a way to cut costs.

 

4 - Get medicare and medicaid fixed the right way - before you take over the ENTIRE DAMN COUNTRY, fix the mess you've already started and bankrupted because you don't know how to run it. The only way to get there is to stagger the entrants and at some point, stop the programs or totally restructure how it's done. You can't just leave this - medicare/medicaid is already 30-40% of medical costs in the current health system. Fix that, you fix a lot of problems because that's a bench mark and already has a lot of influence of accepted drugs and procedures.

 

There are some systemic issues with Medicare that need to be corrected, you are right. Part of it is a funding issue, part of it has to do with the program's administration. Despite its financial flaws, the program is a huge success. If it wasn't so successful, there wouldn't be such an aversion for a generation to even touch the program's benefits.

 

You can't have any of these without looking at the other. They're not separate. They have to be considered in total. You can fix the system with regulatory provisions (i.e. prexisting pools, etc.) without the damn government taking over the whole thing.

 

I know you liberals trust your government more then you trust "businesses" or the private sector, and for the life of me I cannot understand why you would trust a beauracracy that hasn't done s*** right in like, EVER. WOOT! Let's create MORE government positions to conduct medical reviews to determine what procedures and drugs the entire country will get. !!! YAY!!! I just will never, ever understand why your placement of trust is in someone like Barack Obama, rather then the free market system as a whole, if they would actually try and fix it the right way. (And I'm not naive enough to think TOTAL free market, of course you have to regulate it some - but that's not even a consideration, flowery language and all).

 

It's not that I trust government more than I trust business. It's that business has a poor track record in making healthcare more affordable for Americans in this issue. It's that this business in particular is fighting, kicking and screaming to reject any change that might somewhat be more in the national interest rather than in the interest of their profit margins. I'm sorry but I don't agree with Goldwater and Reagan's legacy that government is the problem. The truth is that the government is useful for a lot of great things. We trust the government to provide us with a transportation infrastructure. We trust the government to keep us safe. We trust the government to put out fires. We trust the government for a lot of services and I don't see the harm in allowing the government to offer a public insurance option to help lower costs in the health industry in general as part of a reform of health care services in the US. That doesn't mean that there should be takeover.

 

Forty plus years ago, Reagan opposed the creation of Medicare saying it was a slippery slope to communism and losing the freedoms we cherish. Instead of living under the red menace today, we just live longer as a result. Reagan's comments are eerily similar to what so much of the opposition to health care reform talks about today, so forgive me for disagreeing with it. Reagan turned out to be fundamentally wrong about what Medicare has done. And I just have to think that all the Cassandras crying about public health care is wrong again this time.

[StrangeSox]

The point is right now illegals are not eligible for insurance because they can't legally obtain work. That's honestly the way it should be. So they go to the ER, get treated with world class care (compared to the rest of the world - no it's no perfect, no one says it is) and we the taxpayer pony up or it gets written off. The issue becomes, under this plan, just like you say, they can go purchase insurance like it's bread in a store. "Purchase"... whatever the hell that is. Anyway, that's wrong. If you're not a citizen, you should not be able to pick up insurance like it's bread in a store. What the hell comparision is that? So I'll say it another way, which is the semantics game you're playing. Insurance is guaranteed to be available to them. That's FACT. And it's wrong. Jose Illegal (stereotyped) just got the same "rights" I just got as a citizen, and that's just wrong.

 

Those goal posts must be awfully heavy, Kap.

 

I'm really failing to understand why your option, not giving illegals the option to Purchase (to buy goods or services with money), is better. Because, as you said, we end up paying for their care in the end when they go to emergency rooms and don't pay. Isn't it better for everyone if they're paying into the system?

 

And, really, why shouldn't they be allowed to? What's so morally outrageous about this?

 

Then there's this: Ezekiel Emanual, who is pretty much running the show for this push, has said a hell of a lot regarding "death panels, old people care" and the rest.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3280098676.html

 

Ezekiel said this s***, and that's where a lot of the ammunition is coming from. It's not what's in a bill, it's the positions in which these people take that piss people off. Yet, they will forgo this crap? You actually trust these assbags to do the "right thing" for America? No way.

 

You're citing an opinion column by Betsy "Death Squad" McCaughey? She's the retard that started the whole "death panel" nonsense. I know you just love Jon Stewart so much--should I post a link to his interview with her where she couldn't, you know, actually find any part of the bill that actually says that and looked like the complete fool that she is?

 

GMAFB.

 

edit: Don't forget, that is the same Betsy McCaughey who lied her ass off about Clinton's plan.

Edited August 31, 2009 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Sure. Because the "other side" is obviously lying, right? Ok, all BS aside, seriously, that's how it comes off. People can see and experience things, and it doesn't matter, because there's not "data". But yet, "data" can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say. So, because it supports a position you want it to, you're going to believe it more then you would something I would post. I'm using that as an example. Then you'll post counter after counterpoint talking about how my stuff is junk, because this that and the other is supporting your position.

 

I'm not defending a dissertation when I post stuff - but I guess that tends to be my downfall. All I know is, there's a line between government intervention in MY life versus simply taking my property, and all Kaperbole ™ aside, that's where I draw the line, and apparently a lot of "fear mongering" Americans agree with me.

 

Kap, you're defending irrationalism in this post. Just thought you should know that.

[southsider2k5]

My gawd that's BS. HB 3200 is where a lot of this comes from. So EVERY ARGUEMENT against health care is BS because no one knows what they want to do yet? That's mighty f***ing arrogant of you to then leap to then everyone (against this) is "fear mongering". When you subsidize "public option" and set pricing, it will kill the private industry. It just will. Which Obama himself admits that is what he wants.

 

Typical strategy from the healthers. It is much easier to label and name call.

[BigSqwert]

Typical strategy from the healthers. It is much easier to label and name call.

I love your attempt at labeling people that want to ensure that everyone has health insurance. It actually has a positive connotation.

[StrangeSox]

Typical strategy from the healthers. It is much easier to label and name call.

 

Except I didn't actually argue that strawman he erected. It's much easier to make up your opponent's position and then knock it down instead of addressing what was actually said.

[Texsox]

The point is right now illegals are not eligible for insurance because they can't legally obtain work. That's honestly the way it should be. So they go to the ER, get treated with world class care (compared to the rest of the world - no it's no perfect, no one says it is) and we the taxpayer pony up or it gets written off. The issue becomes, under this plan, just like you say, they can go purchase insurance like it's bread in a store. "Purchase"... whatever the hell that is. Anyway, that's wrong. If you're not a citizen, you should not be able to pick up insurance like it's bread in a store. What the hell comparision is that? So I'll say it another way, which is the semantics game you're playing. Insurance is guaranteed to be available to them. That's FACT. And it's wrong. Jose Illegal (stereotyped) just got the same "rights" I just got as a citizen, and that's just wrong.

 

I pretty much agree with you about offering to illegals (another reason for a guest worker program). The danger is having those same workers spreading a treatable communicable disease. The jobs that many of the illegals work, are in our food chain. Kind of scary that the only people in the country without access to health care will be the people touching your food.

[Texsox]

Typical strategy from the healthers. It is much easier to label and name call.

Mega-dittos (after the edit).

 

Nice label btw

[southsider2k5]

I love your attempt at labeling people that want to ensure that everyone has health insurance. It actually has a positive connotation.

 

To you it is a positive. To others preventing someone who isn't legally allowed to hold the office of the President is a positive thing. Its all in the eye of the beholder. To me the continued erosions of our freedoms aren't too positive.

[Texsox]

To you it is a positive. To others preventing someone who isn't legally allowed to hold the office of the President is a positive thing. Its all in the eye of the beholder. To me the continued erosions of our freedoms aren't too positive.

 

How is assuring all American adequate health care an erosion of your freedom? You do not have a choice in what police department patrols your street. You do not have a choice in what government agency inspects the food you eat or establishes standards for the car you drive. Most Americans do not have a choice in the water that is piped to their homes or the sanitation service to remove the waste. There are certain infrastructures that we have as Americans that are shared.

 

True, it is in the eye of the beholder.

[southsider2k5]

How is assuring all American adequate health care an erosion of your freedom? You do not have a choice in what police department patrols your street. You do not have a choice in what government agency inspects the food you eat or establishes standards for the car you drive. Most Americans do not have a choice in the water that is piped to their homes or the sanitation service to remove the waste. There are certain infrastructures that we have as Americans that are shared.

 

True, it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

[Texsox]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

 

Exactly! And what greater threat to liberty is health?

 

You accept a government run police department to keep you safe from criminals, but a government run department to keep you safe from illness is a threat to your freedoms and liberty?

[southsider2k5]

Exactly! And what greater threat to liberty is health?

 

You accept a government run police department to keep you safe from criminals, but a government run department to keep you safe from illness is a threat to your freedoms and liberty?

 

Exactly. So why would you support the governmentally organized destruction of our medical system?

[StrangeSox]

I heard they're fluoridating your water, too. Stealing your Purity of Essence.

[southsider2k5]

BTW, arguments like this are exactly why there is the fear of the slippery slope amongst the right wing of this nation. There isn't a doubt in my mind that this is only a step towards total governmental health care, and the fact that the government keeps using its own agencies to justify the continued theft of freedoms only reinforces that.

[StrangeSox]

Where's your non-arbitrary line of demarcation? What government services lead to evil socialism and what government services are necessary for a functional society?

[southsider2k5]

Where's your non-arbitrary line of demarcation? What government services lead to evil socialism and what government services are necessary for a functional society?

 

Where is your line? What exact freedoms are you willing to give up so the government can make things "better"? I hear a lot of s*** from people who are willing to turn their lives over to the government, but I am curious for you all to start answering your own questions?

 

Speech?

Religion?

Movement?

Property?

[Texsox]

Exactly. So why would you support the governmentally organized destruction of our medical system?

I'll take a chance and give a full explanation.

 

Because the current system will not be in America's best interest moving forward. The current system is based on companies offering health insurance to their employees. Smaller companies, those that keep jobs in the US instead of outsourcing to foreign countries, have the roughest time offering that benefit. I see small business as the greatest driving force in our economy; moving insurance away from a benefit of employment will help those small businesses to compete for the best employees.

 

Further individual health is actually a community health issue. So many diseases are communicable. By treating the society as a whole, we stand a better chance at a more healthy population for everyone, not just those lucky enough to work for a company that offers health insurance, or who is married to someone with health insurance benefits.

 

Finally, I trust out elected leaders to change the face of health care before the CEOs of insurance companies. The insurance companies have already destroyed the system of the 50s, 60s, and 70s when patients truly had a choice in who they saw or what hospital they visited. Patients have no real choice in who they are insured with, and depending on policy, have no real choice in which provider to see. That doesn't seem very free to me, especially compared to the 70s when I was growing up. And it all started with a simple "benefit". Go to this Doctor and we (the insurance company) will handle the payment. Soon the insurance company had routed their customers to the Doctors that they chose. The patient is the least powerful cog in the current system. They lack the knowledge of the medical community and the money of the insurance company. They are a source of profit or loss for the insurance company.

 

And finally, I believe in America and the people who live here to build the best system on the planet. But I've always been a big fan of the USA and our unlimited potential to do good.

[BigSqwert]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Why'd you keep that in your back pocket when the previous administration implemented illegal phone taps in our country?

 

/thread jack

[Texsox]

Where is your line? What exact freedoms are you willing to give up so the government can make things "better"? I hear a lot of s*** from people who are willing to turn their lives over to the government, but I am curious for you all to start answering your own questions?

 

Speech?

Religion?

Movement?

Property?

 

How do you define "turning your life over to"

 

Boarding a plane that was inspected, controlled, etc by the government?

Buying food that was inspected by the government?

Driving on bridges that were inspected by the government?

Allowing police to monitor your movements as you walk down the street?

Use the court system to put someone to death?

 

If you mean having the government pay my Doctor instead of some insurance company, I have no problem with that. I would be "turning my life over" to a private insurance company, not of my choosing.