Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[Msut77]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/hitler-israel/

First comment:

"Compassionate conservatism rears its head yet again."

I bet she will get invited onto at least one tv show.

[mykevermin]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/hitler-israel/

Woman shouts "Heil Hitler" at an Israeli man complimenting Israel's NHS.

[tivo]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/hitler-israel/

First comment:

"Compassionate conservatism rears its head yet again."

I bet she will get invited onto at least one tv show.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a4cf79df970b-500wi

[tivo]

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj118/oldman_ia/Doctor.jpg

made that in MS paint but you get the idea.

[The Crotch]

Oh my God.

Tivo has been replaced by a parody of himself.

[mykevermin]

but parodys are funny.

overt racism is not funny.

[RAMSTORIA]

i still dont get the planet of the apes thing... what was tivos reasoning behind it again? just that it was funny? i dont remember what he said after he was flamed for his movie poster.

myke, oh myke. it makes me sad that you and msut read and post the same stories.

[mykevermin]

that's fine. you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint thinks shouting "Heil Hitler!" is an appropriate political retort.

But hey, if you want the low road, it's all yours. it's well tread.

[RAMSTORIA]

that's fine. you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint thinks shouting "Heil Hitler!" is an appropriate political retort.

But hey, if you want the low road, it's all yours. it's well tread.

theres no reason to think she shares my viewpoint on anything

[UncleBob]

"Keep doing what you've been doing and you're going to keep getting what you've been getting."

Obama, Bush, they're all the same. If someone's willing to spend millions and millions on a job that pays $400,000/year, you know something's not right.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj118/oldman_ia/Doctor.jpg

made that in MS paint but you get the idea.
It's idiots like you who give people who oppose these health care plans a bad name. Great. Fucking. Job.

that's fine. you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint thinks shouting "Heil Hitler!" is an appropriate political retort.

But hey, if you want the low road, it's all yours. it's well tread.
I love how you group some idiot who yells "Heil Hitler!" at a jewish guy in with people who have perfectly reasonable qualms about these health care bills that are being debated. I suppose you should be disgusted that someone who shares your viewpoint beat up a man for trying to sell flags after a town hall, and called him a racial slur?

[mykevermin]

LOL "perfectly reasonable qualms."

[fullmetalfan720]

LOL "perfectly reasonable qualms."
In case you haven't noticed, the health care reform bill is loaded with kickbacks to big pharma, and big insurance.

[mykevermin]

you were against the bill before there *was* a bill.

Get over yourself and your feigned nobility.

[fullmetalfan720]

you were against the bill before there *was* a bill.

Get over yourself and your feigned nobility.
So? Does that mean we should just disregard the fact that this bill is terrible, and going to hurt more than it helps? I've said before that if we are going to expand coverage to people using the government, this should be handled by the states, not the federal government. Why? The states can't borrow money and build up debt. The states can't create a huge entitlement hole that is very hard to patch up.

[Msut77]

Oh my God.

Tivo has been replaced by a parody of himself.

It is kind of hard to parody right wingers.

Hear about all the dumbshits showing up to where ever Obama goes with guns?

It is kind of hard to explain this to people from other countries:

Furriner: Why are these people so upset?

Me: There is a plan to expand healthcare for millions who don't have it.

Furriner: WTF is wrong with your country?

[UncleBob]

I know we've discussed the fact that liberals are okay with linking Bush to Hitler, but to do the same with Obama - well, that makes you a horrible person... But this story caught my eye as to how blatant it is in the mainstream media.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/04/16/cnns-anti-government-tea-party-reporter-obama-hitler-offensive-bush-hi

A reporter for CNN, Susan Roesgen, did a report in 2006 on New Orleans where a guy showed up in a Bush mask with devil horns and a Hitler hairpiece/mustache. She describes this man as a Bush "look-alike".

More recently, at a TEA party (guh), she went after a man that had a sign portraying Obama as Hitler. "Why be so hard on the President of the United States with such an offensive message?"

[fullmetalfan720]

Me: There is a plan to expand healthcare for millions who don't have it.

Quit playing this bullshit of "the health care bill will expand coverage to millions who don't have it." There is an individual mandate in the bill. What does this mean? You have to pay a certain percentage of your income for health care, depending on your income, if you qualify for subsides. This number is at least 11%-12% which is what the poorest pay. You are taking away this much of their income that they need for food, and a home, and the essentials, to give them government health care. They have no choice in this matter. They either pay that percentage of their income or pay fines. This isn't affordable health care. It's extortion. It's like passing a law that says "You must buy a house, or pay a large fine every month," and saying that you have eliminated homelessness.

[thrustbucket]

Well said, fullmetal.

I have been looking for any hard numbers on any independent study on exactly WHY those 30-60 million Americans without Healthcare don't have it. I can't find one so far. Does anyone know of one?

We seem pretty hell bent on getting them healthcare, hell or high water, but nobody seems to be really asking the question "Why don't they have it?" What percentage of those who don't have it don't have it by choice or don't work at all? Or are we, as a nation, really actually saying "Even if you want to live under a bridge, not work, and not contribute - you should have healthcare for free because it's a right". Is that really where we have come?

[Msut77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8&feature=channel_page

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p34/Msut77/125069335770336802132815.jpg

[UncleBob]

YouTube anecdotes are a great source of data to refute claims.

[mykevermin]

:rofl:

EDIT: Thrust, reform isn't geared towards the 50 million uninsured solely. Plenty of people are underinsured, or pay extraordinarily costly insurance premiums because the health care industry is obliged to (1) shareholders, (2) executives, and (3) patients, in that order of priority. Being insured does not equate to satisfaction, or adequate coverage, or coverage that will prevent you from going bankrupt. That's a large part of this bill as well, so focusing solely on the uninsured (and your question which implies that they are ether the willfully uninsured or the deserving-to-be-uninsured) fails to get at the whole picture.

[fullmetalfan720]

:rofl:

EDIT: Thrust, reform isn't geared towards the 50 million uninsured solely. Plenty of people are underinsured, or pay extraordinarily costly insurance premiums because the health care industry is obliged to (1) shareholders, (2) executives, and (3) patients, in that order of priority. Being insured does not equate to satisfaction, or adequate coverage, or coverage that will prevent you from going bankrupt. That's a large part of this bill as well, so focusing solely on the uninsured (and your question which implies that they are ether the willfully uninsured or the deserving-to-be-uninsured) fails to get at the whole picture.
So, let me get this straight. You are going to screw over the people who are can't afford insurance to save everyone else some money? You don't really care about the people who are uninsured, do you?

[Msut77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcRr5xA-K80&feature=channel

[RAMSTORIA]

heard that barney frank clip on the radio this morning. hilarious.


Well said, fullmetal.

I have been looking for any hard numbers on any independent study on exactly WHY those 30-60 million Americans without Healthcare don't have it. I can't find one so far. Does anyone know of one?



ive read "numbers" but whether or not they were a pundits estimation (more likely) or an actual study im not sure. ill try and find it today while i have downtime at work. the numbers break down something like this, and this is from memory, so its likely different from what i read...

50 million uninsured

10 million are illegal
10 million qualify for government care
10 million who could potentially get care through employment but dont utilize it or are "between" jobs
10 million make over 75k annually but dont buy it
10 million actually uninsured

im 100% positive those arent the same as the ones i read, but thats essentially how they break it down.

[UncleBob]

Still can't figure out why that lady was wearing an Israeli Defense Forces shirt...
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/was-heil-hitler-confrontation-staged.html

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcRr5xA-K80&feature=channel
So? By your logic, everyone who plays video games is a murderer, because some idiot who played them killed some people. Also, by your logic, you are a murderer. How does that make you feel?

[mykevermin]

http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/32877/HC.jpg

In 1995, poverty for a family of four was $15,150.
In 1995, median household income was $34,076.

So if we hit 200% of the poverty line there, we'd still be $3,376 short of the median line (meaning we're not yet at the 50th percentile of income earners in the US). And it is at that threshold that we see the % uninsured decline substantially. Given this relationship between income and insured status, it's clear that the uninsured we're talking about are working class people (esp. since the lowest level has a lower % uninsured level) who have jobs and can't afford health care.

And those indicators are almost a decade and a half old - would you believe that these numbers have improved in 13 years?

(image taken from here (http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/1196ib.pdf). much more good data in the PDF to counter the "can't find it on google" crowd who thinks that nobody ever did demographic research on insured status. :lol:)

[RAMSTORIA]

ok, it seems the "study" i referred to early is a deduction made by mark levin in his book liberty and tyranny... he bases it of census data and their annual report on health care...

numbers from the report from 2007 (most recent i could find)


253.4 million with insurance
45.7 million uninsured
8.1 million under 18 uninsured in "poverty" (ie could qualify for various government programs for coverage. levins deduction, not mine.)
9.7 million are illegal (surprisingly 12.7 million illegals have some type of coverage)
9.1 million make over 75k a year (and could potentially buy insurance, again levin not me)

and then somehow he came up with a percentage of people who lost coverage for part of the year but got it back in the same year, but im not sure where he got it in the study or how he came up with that number.

so by his deduction theres only 25.5 million uninsured, of which 30% (7.65) are "between" insurance coverage. the other 20.2 million could be covered or are not entitled to coverage. so his uninsured number is more in the 17.85 million or so that are actually uninsured... i guess.

anyway, heres the report.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf


edit for myke

the post you just did is mentioned in the study i just posted too, only with updated numbers and a different scale (and no graph :( )

2nd edit

based on your graph it looks like that graph goes through households that make up to 60k, which according to the report i posted accounts for about 41 million people (roughly, not exactly because the income breakdowns are different in my report) uninsured that make under 60k, which 91% of the uninsured in our country. (according to levin its really half that though), take it for what you will (and i know what youll take it for myke ;) )

The proportion of people not covered by health insurance is lower among people with higher income. In 2007, 24.5 percent of people in households with annual incomes of less than $25,000 had no health insurance coverage. Uninsured rates decreased for each consecutive household income group to 21.1 percent for households with incomes of $25,000 to $49,999, 14.5 percent for households with incomes of $50,000 to $74,999, and 7.8 percent for households with incomes of $75,000 or more. Among the four household income groups in Table 6, the uninsured rate was not statistically different in 2007 from 2006 in the lower three groups. The uninsured rate fell for people in households in the highest income group to 7.8 percent in 2007, from 8.5 percent in 2006.

[tivo]

i still dont get the planet of the apes thing... what was tivos reasoning behind it again? just that it was funny? i dont remember what he said after he was flamed for his movie poster.


yea, the whole president looking like an ape thing has already been played out with Bush so what I do isn't very original - I know. I just do it for a laugh. And the Planet of The Apes thing is showing the downfall of man- all possible under Obama.

It's idiots like you who give people who oppose these health care plans a bad name. Great. Fucking. Job.


Democrats love this stuff. they can point towards racism and ignore the real claims by other people. same with the Birthers argument. they don't release Obama's birth certificate and continue to call everyone against Obama a loon (at least Bush released his service record) because how could anyone not support saving $200/month under the new healthcare - they must be racist -all 49% of americans that don't approve (vs the 43% that do approve)*.

* Lattest Gallup Poll

[mykevermin]

based on your graph it looks like that graph goes through households that make up to 60k, which according to the report i posted accounts for about 41 million people (roughly, not exactly because the income breakdowns are different in my report) uninsured that make under 60k, which 91% of the uninsured in our country. (according to levin its really half that though)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Levin is saying - is he claiming that nearly 60% of the uninsured in this country make over 60K annually?

[thrustbucket]

:rofl:

EDIT: Thrust, reform isn't geared towards the 50 million uninsured solely. Plenty of people are underinsured, or pay extraordinarily costly insurance premiums because the health care industry is obliged to (1) shareholders, (2) executives, and (3) patients, in that order of priority. Being insured does not equate to satisfaction, or adequate coverage, or coverage that will prevent you from going bankrupt. That's a large part of this bill as well, so focusing solely on the uninsured (and your question which implies that they are ether the willfully uninsured or the deserving-to-be-uninsured) fails to get at the whole picture.

Fair enough. It's just that everyone I've seen or heard trying to sell the importance of healthcare reform mostly beats on the "Everyone needs healthcare!" drum, not the "Everyone needs better healthcare!" drum. So that's what seems to get focussed on....

[mykevermin]

Depends on how you hear/interpret the arguments about the increases in health-care costs over the past decade. That's more than simply the uninsured.

[RAMSTORIA]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Levin is saying - is he claiming that nearly 60% of the uninsured in this country make over 60K annually?

no, i was just relating the report i posted with the graph you posted because my numbers are a decade more recent. i was saying 90% of the uninsured make under 60k, but levin would argue only half of them are "actually" uninsured.

[camoor]

We seem pretty hell bent on getting them healthcare, hell or high water, but nobody seems to be really asking the question "Why don't they have it?" What percentage of those who don't have it don't have it by choice or don't work at all? Or are we, as a nation, really actually saying "Even if you want to live under a bridge, not work, and not contribute - you should have healthcare for free because it's a right". Is that really where we have come?

Since a sense of humanity and basic moral decency hasn't prevailed here, perhaps I could appeal to your self-interest.

Last thing I saw, disease doesn't care if you have a healthcare plan or not. If you cut working-class people out of healthcare, they're just going to hit up emergency rooms or spread their disease (can't eat if you don't work). And guess what, unless you live in a bubble you interact with working-class people every day (the bus driver, the laundry guy, the cashier at the take-out joint...). If you live in a city you probably come into contact with homeless people too, and there's no guarantee a TB microbe isn't going to jump from the lungs of a coughing panhandler into your air.

So think about it, is it worth it to save a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war if it means Typhoid Mary ends up serving you the next bowl of tomato bisque?

[mykevermin]

no, i was just relating the report i posted with the graph you posted because my numbers are a decade more recent. i was saying 90% of the uninsured make under 60k, but levin would argue only half of them are "actually" uninsured.

yay for more recent numbers.

boo for mark levin.

[thrustbucket]

Since a sense of humanity and basic moral decency hasn't prevailed here, perhaps I could appeal to your self-interest.

Last thing I saw, disease doesn't care if you have a healthcare plan or not. If you cut working-class people out of healthcare, they're just going to hit up emergency rooms or spread their disease (can't eat if you don't work). And guess what, unless you live in a bubble you interact with working-class people every day (the bus driver, the laundry guy, the cashier at the take-out joint...). If you live in a city you probably come into contact with homeless people too, and there's no guarantee a TB microbe isn't going to jump from the lungs of a coughing panhandler into your air.

So think about it, is it worth it to save a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war if it means Typhoid Mary ends up serving you the next bowl of tomato bisque?

Healthcare is always going to be expensive to whomever is paying for it. Everyone lives various lifestyles, some of which invite health problems far more than others.

Why should everyone be obligated to take care of someone that wanted to smoke, drive fast cars, weigh 500 lbs, eat out of trash cans, and screw hookers, while refusing to work? Why does that guy have a right to expect society to pay for his health problems? At some point, society has to give some people the finger - because they aren't deserving of all of society's perks.

You have to draw the line somewhere, unfortunately. The big argument with this is do we want the government deciding who gets covered based on various factors (like in the UK) or do we want greedy corporations deciding. Ultimately, most people agree a hybrid of both is the answer, but it's a very delicate patchwork solution to get right.

[mykevermin]

What?

The very idea of insurance is based on some mild form of "wealth redistribution." You pay lower rates if you're a young, fit, nonsmoker with no preexisting conditions. But your rates help cover the potential costs for the entire insurance company. Doesn't mean you're paying the same amount that mr or mrs unhealthy-pants is, but it would be silly to think that companies don't consider their overall costs when you get your rate.

[thrustbucket]

Of course. And that's a type of government regulation I could get behind; regulating that type of stuff.

My issue is that any time we take anything that costs a lot of tax-payer money and call it a "right" it's very hairy, if not an outright bad idea. Simply because we need to expect a certain baseline of behavior and social parcipitation back from individuals getting that "right".

If I go live under a freeway overpass, simply because I'm sick of working and want to be lazy, and eat diseased pigeons till i get ill, I am not going to expect government help of any kind. And when it's refused, I'd understand.

In other words, people shouldn't be allowed to be volunteer wards of the state.

Now if we require individuals to work, or even volunteer, that are receiving welfare/free healthcare then let's start the discussion there - and I bet you'd get a lot more participation.

[HowStern]

Of course. And that's a type of government regulation I could get behind; regulating that type of stuff.

My issue is that any time we take anything that costs a lot of tax-payer money and call it a "right" it's very hairy, if not an outright bad idea. Simply because we need to expect a certain baseline of behavior and social parcipitation back from individuals getting that "right".

If I go live under a freeway overpass, simply because I'm sick of working and want to be lazy, and eat diseased pigeons till i get ill, I am not going to expect government help of any kind. And when it's refused, I'd understand.

In other words, people shouldn't be allowed to be volunteer wards of the state.

Now if we require individuals to work, or even volunteer, that are receiving welfare/free healthcare then let's start the discussion there - and I bet you'd get a lot more participation.


Well, with forced coverage, everyone pays. You sign up for the public option you pay the fee. You don't sign up for any kind of plan you get fined.

Everyone pays their own way.

[fullmetalfan720]

Well, with forced coverage, everyone pays. You sign up for the public option you pay the fee. You don't sign up for any kind of plan you get fined.

Everyone pays their own way.
Especially when they can't afford it!

[thrustbucket]

Well, with forced coverage, everyone pays. You sign up for the public option you pay the fee. You don't sign up for any kind of plan you get fined.

Everyone pays their own way.

So are you telling me that the guy that doesn't pay gets turned away at the emergency room under the new plan?

[HowStern]

So are you telling me that the guy that doesn't pay gets turned away at the emergency room under the new plan?

We don't do that now with a broken system costing us a ton, why would we start doing it with a reformed system that saves us money?

@fullmetal, I'm really sick of the "They won't be able to afford a service that is based on what they make" argument. It's a load of shit. Right now the only alternative is to not get health care at all. How's that better? Oh, right, they could go and buy an expensive plan and sell their house and their car and give up their kids college savings if they get sick. That's a much better alternative!

[mykevermin]

^ except that the kind of people you're talking about don't have delusions of grandeur like "savings" and "college for kids."

[JolietJake]

Well said, fullmetal.

I have been looking for any hard numbers on any independent study on exactly WHY those 30-60 million Americans without Healthcare don't have it. I can't find one so far. Does anyone know of one?

We seem pretty hell bent on getting them healthcare, hell or high water, but nobody seems to be really asking the question "Why don't they have it?" What percentage of those who don't have it don't have it by choice or don't work at all? Or are we, as a nation, really actually saying "Even if you want to live under a bridge, not work, and not contribute - you should have healthcare for free because it's a right". Is that really where we have come?
Can't speak for everyone, but i don't have health care because no company will take me due to health problems.

[mykevermin]

Get off your ass and stop being sick, then.

[thrustbucket]

Can't speak for everyone, but i don't have health care because no company will take me due to health problems.

Then you are a good example for the type of reform we need. If you have a job and pay taxes and can't get insurance, I have no problem with the government stepping in and providing you with something.

[fullmetalfan720]

@fullmetal, I'm really sick of the "They won't be able to afford a service that is based on what they make" argument.
I'm really sick of you and everyone else who supports these bills saying that they are going to be so great, and expand coverage to everyone. It is partly based on what they make, but it is a minimum of 11-12% of someone's income that is being taken away before the subsidies kick in. I don't know how you expect a family that is making barely enough to feed their kids, and pay for rent on their home to afford that.
It's a load of shit. Right now the only alternative is to not get health care at all. How's that better? How are the plans being debated better?
Oh, right, they could go and buy an expensive plan and sell their house and their car and give up their kids college savings if they get sick. That's a much better alternative!Do you know how to fucking read? No where in my posts have I suggested anything like this. I have instead suggested a variety of things, including expanding Medicare to the people who cannot get/afford insurance, letting the states handle it, while giving them funding to expand care, and a life/car insurance like option for health care insurance that only covers emergencies. All of these would be much better options than the bills that are currently being debated.

[thrustbucket]

So what does it say in the proposed bills is the penalty for not paying for health insurance or not having it?

[JolietJake]

Get off your ass and stop being sick, then.
I know, i'm a lazy bum.:lol:

[Msut77]

Can't speak for everyone, but i don't have health care because no company will take me due to health problems.

There also plenty of people who have insurance that won't cover something considered preexisting, so they are covered for almost everything except for what they would probably need attention for.

[HowStern]

I'm really sick of you and everyone else who supports these bills saying that they are going to be so great, and expand coverage to everyone. It is partly based on what they make, but it is a minimum of 11-12% of someone's income that is being taken away before the subsidies kick in.

Source that isn't an op-ed or blog?


Do you know how to fucking read? No where in my posts have I suggested anything like this. I have instead suggested a variety of things, including expanding Medicare to the people who cannot get/afford insurance, letting the states handle it, while giving them funding to expand care, and a life/car insurance like option for health care insurance that only covers emergencies. All of these would be much better options than the bills that are currently being debated.

LOL..Completely unrealistic. How will we pay for these things while we continue to pay 3x more per person than every other industrialized nation?

[speedracer]

So what does it say in the proposed bills is the penalty for not paying for health insurance or not having it?
You should totally do some original research and hook us up with that.

[fullmetalfan720]

Source that isn't an op-ed or blog?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMRM8IFKa3ZmMaa-N_nRCuf9U9oAD99ODVVG0
_Poor people would get subsidies to help them buy care after spending 12 percent of their income on premiums, instead of 11 percent in the existing bill.LOL..Completely unrealistic. How will we pay for these things while we continue to pay 3x more per person than every other industrialized nation?How will we pay for a public option? Cut 500 billion off Medicare? That will work real well. You know, giving government control of something doesn't mean it magically starts working right. Actually, it tends to mean the opposite.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

How will we pay for a public option?
Leave Iraq. That's $50-100 billion per year easy.

[fullmetalfan720]

Leave Iraq. That's $50-100 billion per year easy.
And Afghanistan, and everywhere else. Do we really need troops in Japan or Germany anymore?

[mykevermin]

Pull out of Afghanistan? Ummm...huh?

[Msut77]

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/cbo-scores-confirms-deficit-ne.shtml

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/cbo-scores-confirms-deficit-ne.shtml

I don't trust anybody with a mustache.

[UncleBob]

Pull out of Afghanistan? Ummm...huh?

Yes. I'm not against sending aid to other countries when they face major natural disasters, but aside from that, let's fix our problems here before we worry about fixing the rest of the globe.

[HowStern]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMRM8IFKa3ZmMaa-N_nRCuf9U9oAD99ODVVG0

In germany when the poor hit 15% of their income spent on their forced coverage the government steps in and helps pay for it bringing them back down to about 5%. I believe what the link you provided is saying is that if what you spend on coverage equals 12% or more of your income the government steps in and helps foot the bill in the same way bringing you down to a lesser amount.


How will we pay for a public option?
Forced coverage fees and fines. Like in Germany.

Or we could stop spending on dumb shit like foc said.

[UncleBob]

If the "Public Option" will be so wonderfully great, why have "forced" coverage in the first place? Won't people just flock to it in droves?

[mykevermin]

Yes. I'm not against sending aid to other countries when they face major natural disasters, but aside from that, let's fix our problems here before we worry about fixing the rest of the globe.

My point is that Afghanistan ≠ Korea ≠ Okinawa ≠ Hiedelberg ≠ Iraq. There's a war going on in Afghanistan still.

[UncleBob]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there's still a war going on in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8210263.stm). It's not as violent as it was, but it's still there.

But, frankly, too much of what we're into isn't our fight. Get us out and, after a healthy stay at home with their families and loved ones, put our boys to work building a nice fence along our two borders.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/cbo-scores-confirms-deficit-ne.shtml
CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings.What is this going to be at the cost of? How do you cut 500 billion from the budget without a reduction in quality of care?
Pull out of Afghanistan? Ummm...huh?
Yeah, you heard me right. We shouldn't have gone in the first place, and we shouldn't be there now. It seems like all we have been doing there lately is bombing civilians, which I'm sure makes the people love us.
My point is that Afghanistan ≠ Korea ≠ Okinawa ≠ Hiedelberg ≠ Iraq. There's a war going on in Afghanistan still.
So? We've been in there for almost 10 years now. The Soviets fell into the same quagmire that we have, and at least they knew when to pull out. Hell, by this time in the war the Soviets figured out that they needed to leave. It's pretty sad we still haven't.
If the "Public Option" will be so wonderfully great, why have "forced" coverage in the first place? Won't people just flock to it in droves?
I wish someone would answer this. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will.
In germany when the poor hit 15% of their income spent on their forced coverage the government steps in and helps pay for it bringing them back down to about 5%. I believe what the link you provided is saying is that if what you spend on coverage equals 12% or more of your income the government steps in and helps foot the bill in the same way bringing you down to a lesser amount.
No, I don't think that's how it works. It says:
Poor people would get subsidies to help them buy care after spending 12 percent of their income on premiums, instead of 11 percent in the existing bill.It sounds like they would get the rest of the bill footed by the government, after 11 or 12 percent of their income goes to health care premiums.
Forced coverage fees and fines. Like in Germany.That sounds so fun.
Or we could stop spending on dumb shit like foc said.
Like that will happen.

[HowStern]

No, I don't think that's how it works. It says:
It sounds like they would get the rest of the bill footed by the government, after 11 or 12 percent of their income goes to health care premiums.

I know what it says and it sounds exactly like the German system. If what you pay equals 12% of your income the government will step in and help pay for it so it no longer costs you 12% of your income. In germany the max is 15%. But your employer pays half, so it's actually if you pay 8% you get help footing the bill bringing you down to 5% or possibly less.

Also, in Germany, if someone is married with children, only one spouse has to pay this fee and the wife/husband and kids are then all covered under the plan.



That sounds so fun.

The alternative being to continue to watch our system collapse on itself paying more than every other industrialized nation while we have a much lower life expectancy, lesser quality care, and much smaller percentage of insured population.

Some quick comparisons.
http://itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/4582

[perdition(troy]

Last time I checked the news the only healthcare system I heard about "collapsing" was the canadian one.

[bigdaddy]

I have talked to Canadians, they say their doctors are idiots, but it's free.

Doctors in the USA are idiots and it will literally cost you an arm and a leg!

And all this talk of a public option... just shows that US schools are so horrible that half the country doesn't seem to know what the meaning of option is.

[perdition(troy]

@ Big Daddy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74035.html

@ Whoever:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/20/obama_basic_standard_of_decency_allows_illegals_to _be_treated.html

That's exactly what we need to be spending our tax money on. Free treatment in ER's for illegals "in certain cases".

[fullmetalfan720]

I know what it says and it sounds exactly like the German system. If what you pay equals 12% of your income the government will step in and help pay for it so it no longer costs you 12% of your income. In germany the max is 15%. But your employer pays half, so it's actually if you pay 8% you get help footing the bill bringing you down to 5% or possibly less.

Also, in Germany, if someone is married with children, only one spouse has to pay this fee and the wife/husband and kids are then all covered under the plan.
We aren't Germany. We're one of the least egalitarian countries in the world. (We used to be the most!) I somehow find it hard to believe that this would be the case, when the article probably would have said that then, if that was the case.

The alternative being to continue to watch our system collapse on itself paying more than every other industrialized nation while we have a much lower life expectancy, lesser quality care, and much smaller percentage of insured population.

Some quick comparisons.
http://itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/4582
I think you've got the wrong health care system collapsing. That would be our neighbors to the north.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

[HowStern]

Last time I checked the news the only healthcare system I heard about "collapsing" was the canadian one.

You should check again. Link below.


I think you've got the wrong health care system collapsing. That would be our neighbors to the north.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

No, it certainly is our system that is collapsing.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

National Health Care Spending

-National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.1

-National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year. 1

and

The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs

-A recent study found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.9

-According to another published article, about 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.10

-Without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.11

[camoor]

You should check again. Link below.



No, it certainly is our system that is collapsing.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml



and

I envision a morbidly obese corporate fatcat tied to the back of a spindly cowboy, who is proclaiming "He ain't heavy, he's my healthcare"

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uquwxoFJ52M
http://www.breitbart.tv/charming-liar-progressives-turn-on-obama-as-air-america-exposes-fascist-drug-deal/
Two great videos of Air America talking about how Obama's health care reform is just bullshit.

[Msut77]

That's exactly what we need to be spending our tax money on. Free treatment in ER's for illegals "in certain cases".

Money is spent on them the way the system is now.

And one "certain case" Obama has talked about is in the case of the children of illegal immigrants.

Is there anyone who would be against that?

[perdition(troy]

Ya, me.

[Msut77]

Seriously?

[HowStern]

Yeah that's pretty fucked. Punishing children because their parents are immigrants.

Not to mention you would essentially be clogging ERs up everywhere since children get sick so often.
So, next time someone in your family has a heart attack and has to wait longer in the ER you can relax. He's just waiting because some kid has a cold with a fever but didn't have health insurance.

[perdition(troy]

illegal immigrants*

See, my parents were immigrants. My parents came here legally.

I have never seen a clogged ER that hasn't been able to deal with a heart attach patient. If you ever have been in a hospital, you'd know there are things called codes. Staff will drop everything at the drop of a hat when one is called.

[Msut77]

illegal immigrants*

See, my parents were immigrants. My parents came here legally.

No one cares and it really means nothing in the context of helping a potentially dying child.

I have never seen a clogged ER that hasn't been able to deal with a heart attack patient. If you ever have been in a hospital, you'd know there are things called codes. Staff will drop everything at the drop of a hat when one is called.

What does happen is that an ambulance with someone who had a heart attack will have to go to different hospitals because the ER is at capacity.

[perdition(troy]

No, it won't.

Do you have any knowledge of how a hospital works? Or are you just using more talking points that you read while sitting on your computer.

[Msut77]

No, it won't.

It happens about once a minute.

Do you have any knowledge of how a hospital works?

I don't work in a hospital but I know of the term "divert status" which makes me more knowledgeable than you.

[HowStern]

illegal immigrants*

See, my parents were immigrants. My parents came here legally.

I have never seen a clogged ER that hasn't been able to deal with a heart attach patient. If you ever have been in a hospital, you'd know there are things called codes. Staff will drop everything at the drop of a hat when one is called.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5884487&page=1

[UncleBob]

Question: Two hypothetical families. One consists of a working father, a working mother and two children. The parents make just enough to get by and pay for their children's health care. They don't break the law.

Second family consists of an illegal immigrant father, an illegal immigrant mother and two illegal immigrant children. The parents do work, but since they're illegal, they've had to break the law more and work under someone else's identity. They don't make much money - so they end up depending on the State to pay for their children's health care.

So - why should the first family be "punished" and have to pay for their children's health care when the second family is the one breaking the law?

[mykevermin]

LOU DOBBS!

Seriously? You're a smart dude, but sometimes the hypotheticals you sculpt agonize the fuck out of my brain.

Illegals drink from water fountains. I pay taxes. WTF is up with that shit?

LOU DOBBS!

[UncleBob]

I don't think drinking from a water fountain and paying taxes are equatable.

I think, two similar families, one breaking the law and one not breaking the law, with one family getting "rewarded" and one family getting "punished" is similar.

For the record, I'm actually for less strict immigration laws. I'm for building a fence and I'm for kicking every single illegal immigrant (and virtually every single politician) out - but I'm not against letting in virtually anyone who wants to come in and add to the "value" of this country. Of course, we need some major tax reform laws first (I know you don't like it Myke, but - FairTax!).

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I don't think drinking from a water fountain and paying taxes are equatable.

I think, two similar families, one breaking the law and one not breaking the law, with one family getting "rewarded" and one family getting "punished" is similar.

For the record, I'm actually for less strict immigration laws. I'm for building a fence and I'm for kicking every single illegal immigrant (and virtually every single politician) out - but I'm not against letting in virtually anyone who wants to come in and add to the "value" of this country. Of course, we need some major tax reform laws first (I know you don't like it Myke, but - FairTax!).

So ... The problem is the government and not the illegal immigrants?

Why are illegal immigrants such a target?

Let's get past the illegal immigrant part. Several peoples' ancestors came into this country illegally or under less than honorable circumstances over the past 225 years.

Effectively, you have poor person in the US that may speak some English.

That person pays taxes every time he or she buys gasoline, a Whopper or a pair of shoes.

"That person is ruining health care." You're right. They are in the same spot as anybody on Medicaid or Medicare except their wages aren't paying into Medicaid or Medicare. Of course, their wages aren't paying towards the Social Security retirement, disability or life insurance benefits. What happens when that immigrant hits 67 (I hope they invested some money), or loses an arm on or off the job (They weren't paying into worker's comp and the government has no tax returns to base a disability check on) or dies unexpectedly (No monthly check for their spouse or children under 18)?

The above assumes Juan or Juanita Illegalo work for cash under the table.

IF they are using somebody else's identity, then they are paying all applicable taxes.

...

The boy just woke up, I'll get back to this maybe.

[Ruined]

McCain: Public option must be dropped for agreement on healthcare.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_public_option/2009/08/23/251279.html

McCain is 100% spot on here. There are alternatives to massive gov't intervention that can create more competition/options.

[Msut77]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/20/public-plan-77-percent/

I wonder if there is much overlap between the 23% against a public option and the 23% who approved of Bush towards the end.

[UncleBob]

Interesting thing about that survey (aside from the way some of the stuff is phrased)...

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
43% Oppose and 51% Support Obama's plan (which the survey condensed 1,000+ pages down to two lines...). Yet 77% support a public option. I think this goes to show, perhaps, there's a rather large group out there that sees through Obama's lies and deals within the Health Care industry.

Also interesting in the survey results is the %for/against in regards to annual income...

[dmaul1114]

I found this Newsweek piece one of the better things I've read about all the FUD on the health care plans and why it catches on while the facts get lost in the shuffle.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212131

The white house really needs to do more to make the plan clear and dispell myths. Having a lot of debate on the topic is good, but it needs to be centered on facts of the plan not lies and misinformation that distracts from what's really being proposed.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html
Hey, look, it's Paul Krugman talking about how Obama has betrayed the Progressives with his health care meandering.

[mykevermin]

McCain: Public option must be dropped for agreement on healthcare.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_public_option/2009/08/23/251279.html

McCain is 100% spot on here. There are alternatives to massive gov't intervention that can create more competition/options.

You believe that Republicans will vote on any kind of Democrat-sponsored health care reform?

That's akin to wondering if Lucy will let Charlie Brown kick the football this time.

[Nebenator]

Trying to stay on topic, I agree with the OP. We don't have money to spend right now, and taxing us WILL NOT HELP.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g264/ballmon777/demo.jpg

[fullmetalfan720]

McCain: Public option must be dropped for agreement on healthcare.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_public_option/2009/08/23/251279.html

McCain is 100% spot on here. There are alternatives to massive gov't intervention that can create more competition/options.
I would rather see all of the bills scraped and Congress starting over. If you are going to have health care reform, don't say that a 2% reduction in drug costs is savings. Don't have a clause in the bill that prohibits negotiation with drug companies for the best price. Don't have an individual mandate. Don't cut secretive back room deals with the health care companies. Create a bill that will actually help people, not this bullshit that we have now.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I would rather see all of the bills scraped and Congress starting over. If you are going to have health care reform, don't say that a 2% reduction in drug costs is savings. Don't have a clause in the bill that prohibits negotiation with drug companies for the best price. Don't have an individual mandate. Don't cut secretive back room deals with the health care companies. Create a bill that will actually help people, not this bullshit that we have now.

Would you be better with a simple single payer system?

[Msut77]

Trying to stay on topic, I agree with the OP. We don't have money to spend right now, and taxing us WILL NOT HELP.

The OP doesn't even agree with the OP anymore judging how he disappeared in a cloud of cheetoh dust.

P.s. We cannot afford not to make reforms, you would probably know this if you bothered to read anything in this thread before posting.

[Nebenator]

The OP doesn't even agree with the OP anymore judging how he disappeared in a cloud of cheetoh dust.

P.s. We cannot afford not to make reforms, you would probably know this if you bothered to read anything in this thread before posting.
I think the OP just doesn't want to argue for 2 weeks straight.

[The Crotch]

I think the OP is a mystical woodland creature, and he had to return to the spring from which he was born to replenish his Life Essence!

[Msut77]

I think the OP just doesn't want to argue for 2 weeks straight.

The OP didn't argue at all, he posted one shoddy article and made one post that was a load drivel strung together.

There is a distinction.

I don't mean to rag on you, but you might find this interesting and it was only a few pages back:

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/cbo-scores-confirms-deficit-ne.shtml

[fullmetalfan720]

Would you be better with a simple single payer system?
Depends.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I think the OP just doesn't want to argue for 2 weeks straight.

It has been 2 months and almost 2 weeks. Clearly, the Crotch is correct.

[Msut77]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/mccain-defends-palin-on-obamacare-claims.html

Not that I expected much from McCain but that was just disgraceful.

[thrustbucket]

I found this Newsweek piece one of the better things I've read about all the FUD on the health care plans and why it catches on while the facts get lost in the shuffle.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212131

The white house really needs to do more to make the plan clear and dispell myths. Having a lot of debate on the topic is good, but it needs to be centered on facts of the plan not lies and misinformation that distracts from what's really being proposed.

You are right. Public opinion is tanking on healthcare because platitudes and feel-good bumper-sticker slogans, without hard facts and detailed plans might get the public to elect someone, but it won't get them to support a program that affects every single one of them drastically.

Our leaders can't even stand in front of us and answer simple questions about the plans they propose, so it's starting to seem as if the plans were written in such a convoluted way that anything could become of them. I think John Q Publics slick $2 used-car salesman sensors are going en masse. Especially if our own leaders don't understand what they are pitching.

It's almost as if they are just trying to get us to support another "vote for change" without much information about the change. And why wouldn't they, when it's worked so well before?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yeah ... politicians not reading bills don't instill a lot of public confidence.

[fullmetalfan720]

Yeah ... politicians not reading bills don't instill a lot of public confidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw

[fullmetalfan720]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090824/us_time/08599191826100
The health-care-reform bill proposed by House Democrats does not actually override those restrictions. But it does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program - the so-called public option - without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion. Instead, the only money the public insurance option could spend on abortion that does not involve rape, incest or the life of the mother would be money collected from members dues; or, in the words of supporters like Elizabeth Shipp, of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the plan "could only use private funds to pay for abortion services."
Under the legislation, the Executive Branch would have to make a determination that abortion is a basic medical service for the service to be provided, something the Obama Administration is expected to do.
Last time I checked, pregnancy was not a medical ailment.

[thrustbucket]

Apparently if it's unwanted it is.

[RAMSTORIA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw

awesome

[mykevermin]

Hey look.

The people who argue that it would provide too little care (via their arguments about "rationing" and "death panels" are now upset that it provides more care than they expected.

Further proof that some of the most vocal opponents of health care reform only have ideology in mind, and simply won't be pleased with any bill in any form.

You've defeated your own argument.

[fullmetalfan720]

Hey look.

The people who argue that it would provide too little care (via their arguments about "rationing" and "death panels" are now upset that it provides more care than they expected.

Further proof that some of the most vocal opponents of health care reform only have ideology in mind, and simply won't be pleased with any bill in any form.

You've defeated your own argument.
I would think that the argument would be it provides care in all the wrong places, but not in the right ones.

[mykevermin]

But there's nothing to support the assertion that rationing or denial of care will occur, save for the ideological disposition of Reaganism: if government touches it, it'll fuck it up.

[dopa345]

The problem is that no health care plan that's been ever proposed truly addresses why health care costs are so high. That's why they will all be doomed to failure.

[fullmetalfan720]

But there's nothing to support the assertion that rationing or denial of care will occur,
Money. More specifically the 500 billion cut from Medicare.
save for the ideological disposition of Reaganism: if government touches it, it'll fuck it up.That is actually what tends to happen. See the Post Office, Amtrack, ect. That's largely because of the status of our government today though. Inefficient, and corrupt.

[gareman]

Just making an observation here... why do mainly UncleBob and Fullmetal fan arguments mainly consist of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong"? Any person whom has taken logic 101 knows that those subjective vague terms hold no place in any argument.

[fullmetalfan720]

Just making an observation here... why do mainly UncleBob and Fullmetal fan arguments mainly consist of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong"? Any person whom has taken logic 101 knows that those subjective vague terms hold no place in any argument.
Sure, let's just ignore the corruption in these health care bills, and the screwing of people over, and instead focus on attacks on people.

[mykevermin]

:rofl:

[tivo]

But there's nothing to support the assertion that rationing or denial of care will occur, save for the ideological disposition of Reaganism: if government touches it, it'll fuck it up.

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

[mykevermin]

I think I saw that on the back of a "Volvo" once.

[Msut77]

Just making an observation here... why do mainly UncleBob and Fullmetal fan arguments mainly consist of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong"? Any person whom has taken logic 101 knows that those subjective vague terms hold no place in any argument.

Bob flits from logical fallacy to logical fallacy like a butterfly with wings of fail.

There is no actual argument against health care reform and it seems like the public option might become a reality, although I still believe the Democrats have a chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[tivo]

say a kid has a mild concussion. under universal health care there would be no reason not for him to get a MRI (except common sense). Now extrapolate this frivolous screening and testing to the 300+ million people all for "preventative*" testing. Sure, a lot of people wont get tested, but their will be an increase in cases without an increase in physicians. Wait times will follow. Costs will dictate certain protocols instead of looking at an individual basis and people wont always get what they want.

Do you honestly believe the government would pay for a hip replacement for a 90 yr. old grandmother? They wouldn't and many other cases will reach similar outcomes. In all, from quality to cost, obamacare is a bad idea.


*nothing is preventative - cancer, car crashes, etc. all happen and one can't be tested for everything/ the costs of testing everyone exceeds the cost of treating the few - so calling it "preventative" is a misnomer.


P.S. why did you put "Volvo" in quotes

[Msut77]

Joe Lieberman, head of the Liebermen for Lieberman party came out against a public option today.

For completely contradictory and incoherent reasons to no ones surprise.

[elprincipe]

*nothing is preventative - cancer, car crashes, etc. all happen and one can't be tested for everything/ the costs of testing everyone exceeds the cost of treating the few - so calling it "preventative" is a misnomer.

It's not really a misnomer, but there has been a lot of crazy claims about it during this debate.

The misinformation spread by the administration on preventative testing is great. Studies have shown that preventative testing (things like mammograms) does not save money at all, but costs more on the whole (for example, test 100 people, catch 1 person who would get sick, save money on that 1 person, but have an extra cost for the other 99 that exceeds the savings on the 1 person). That's not to say that it isn't worth the extra cost, but Obama and Democrats go around saying "we need prevention to save money," which is a blatant falsehood. Perhaps supporters of such things think that if they repeat this lie often enough, people will believe it.

[fullmetalfan720]

There is no actual argument against health care reform and it seems like the public option might become a reality, although I still believe the Democrats have a chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
No, there is an argument against your kind of health care "reform," but it seems you constantly ignore it. You can't cut 500 billion from Medicare and not have a reduction in care. 2% savings on prescription drugs is not savings, when there is a no negotiation clause. ect.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

... their will be an increase in cases without an increase in physicians.

Why wouldn't there be an increase in physicians?

[dmaul1114]

Why wouldn't there be an increase in physicians?

There's already a decline in primary care physicians.

As I said, a big problem is most people go into it for the money, not out of wanting to help people, so they gravitate more toward specialist positions that pay more rather than doing primary care internal medicine.

That's a reason why the US already has a longer average wait time to see your primary care physician than some other countries--including Canada and some others with universal health care per the Newsweek article I linked (I think--or another column in the same issue).

Though I think the government could help that out by offering to excuse student loans for doctors who agree to practice primary care internal medicine for 10 years etc.--like many places do for teachers.

[mykevermin]

It's not really a misnomer, but there has been a lot of crazy claims about it during this debate.

The misinformation spread by the administration on preventative testing is great. Studies have shown that preventative testing (things like mammograms) does not save money at all, but costs more on the whole (for example, test 100 people, catch 1 person who would get sick, save money on that 1 person, but have an extra cost for the other 99 that exceeds the savings on the 1 person). That's not to say that it isn't worth the extra cost, but Obama and Democrats go around saying "we need prevention to save money," which is a blatant falsehood. Perhaps supporters of such things think that if they repeat this lie often enough, people will believe it.

I don't think your idea of preventative care is what most people consider preventative care.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, if anything testing like that is one small part of preventative care.

True preventative care is having major efforts to promote health. Get obesity down, get people exercising, get people eating healthy, get people to not smoke, to not abuse alcohol, to wear sunscreen etc. etc.

A lot of illness in this country is due to bad habits--especially heart disease and lung problems.

Have regular physicals wear the doctors advise on these things and so forth. Though I still think the best way to get people to change is to give financial incentives. Have insurance premiums at some base rate and from their people can earn discounts by not smoking, keeping their bodyfat in the excellent or good ranges for their age, having a gym membership (which could also be tax deductable) etc. etc. That gives people a financial incentive to take care of themselves so they can save money--just like not speeding and avoiding tickets so you can get the safe driver discount on your car insurance.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://usdebtclock.org/ - because I couldn't find a better place for it.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://usdebtclock.org/ - because I couldn't find a better place for it.
Wow, the bailouts have totaled almost 12 trillion now. I wonder how high this number will go.

[KingBroly]

What's the country's GDP again?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What's the country's GDP again?

A little under 9T.

EDIT: I feel like a prude. I've had almost $9K spent on me this year and the government has barely fucked me. I guess they're saving up for next year.

[maxim2boobles]

Is it slapping your troubles away?


Yes, it does slap the republicans away

[elprincipe]

True preventative care is having major efforts to promote health. Get obesity down, get people exercising, get people eating healthy, get people to not smoke, to not abuse alcohol, to wear sunscreen etc. etc.

Oh, I see. What you say is "preventative care" is what I say is "social engineering," which I'm totally against on the grounds of I'll-live-my-life-the-way-I-want-so-fuck-off-government. Real preventative care, what I was referring to, includes things like blood tests, prostate exams, breast cancer screening and the like. While these things are certainly worthwhile, to say they save money (among a group as opposed to an individual) is just not true.

[dmaul1114]

People can live the way they want to.

But if they want to be worthless, unhealthy fat slobs, then they should pay higher premiums--not have everyone pay higher premiums to subsidize their more frequent need of health care. See the stats I posted earlier on the thread on how much an obese person accrues in a year in health care costs on average vs. people at healthy weight.

Just like people with perfect driving records get discounts, so should those of us who keep our selves in great shape and don't need to use the health care system very often.

The only ways to save money on health care spending are:

1. Get the populace, on average, healthier and needing medicine, surgery etc. less often.
2. Find a way to get costs charged to patients/billed to insurance down. Drugs, office visits, surgery's etc. all cost way more than they should as the health care system has become nothing but another capitalist system focused only on maximizing profits rather than providing the best and most efficient health care for patients.

[KingBroly]

A little under 9T.

EDIT: I feel like a prude. I've had almost $9K spent on me this year and the government has barely fucked me. I guess they're saving up for next year.

I'm guessing the total will near 18 trillion and then someone will finally call in our Bar Tab.

[tivo]

^^
unhealthy people, or people with preexisting conditions, do pay, and should pay, higher premiums because they are more likely to require medical care. its the same for automotive insurance with crappy old cars. but there are laws in place that prevent insurance companies from excluding high risk people.

now i agree partly with dmaul on #2. just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these cost way more than they should and would if covered by the individual.

another issue that hasn't really been addressed here that would definitely save money is that health insurance should not be attached with one's employment. companies receive rediculous amounts of money from the government to help them pay for their employee;s insurance. cut that BS out. let everyone pay for the private insurance they want/need on an individual basis and offer discounts/rebates to individuals with insurance rather than only to companies (although id prefer not to have any discount/rebate from owning health insurance as what would stop the insurance companies from raising their prices by an equivalent amount).

[tivo]

quick question, i know that no one has read the 1000+ page bill, but assuming the health care proposed is similar to European health care, will everyone be allowed to take an ambulance to the emergency room whenever they have a problem no matter the degree?

because if so, then it could get real pricey real soon but if not, it sounds like another death panel spin off.

let me know what you think.

[KingBroly]

I'm not exactly sure I've read anything when it comes to ambulances.

Relevent news: Theodore Kennedy is dead at 77

[camoor]

^^
unhealthy people, or people with preexisting conditions, do pay, and should pay, higher premiums because they are more likely to require medical care. its the same for automotive insurance with crappy old cars. but there are laws in place that prevent insurance companies from excluding high risk people.

Now you're putting words in his mouth.

He said unhealthy slobs should pay more - not people with preexisting conditions.

[UncleBob]

quick question, i know that no one has read the 1000+ page bill, but assuming the health care proposed is similar to European health care, will everyone be allowed to take an ambulance to the emergency room whenever they have a problem no matter the degree?

because if so, then it could get real pricey real soon but if not, it sounds like another death panel spin off.

let me know what you think.

That's the thing a lot of people don't get about this. Either we cover everyone for everything - which is going to cost a lot of money, or there's going to have to be some kind of review process in place wherein the government denies treatment.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

we cover everyone for everything

How much more does this option cost than the current method?

[mykevermin]

That's just more theory.

The argument that preventative care is less costly by seeing more people rests on the premise that going to see a physician in advance for a "hey, my tummy feels funny" and getting advice on maintenance and avoiding greater problems is cheaper than a several-day hospital stay, ambulance ride, major invasive surgical procedure, aftercare, pharmaceuticals, and the other things I'm neglecting because I've not enough caffeine.

"Hey, look at your blood pressure and cholesterol levels! Sorry, dude, no more "Grand Slams" for breakfast: it's oatmeal diet time for you!" isn't something that people hear or abide by if they don't go to see any physicians until it happens *after* major heart troubles. Like was noted a few pages back, Americans are in denial about their own weight assessment and the problems that correspond with that. The health problems that will result due to the combination of the risk assessment itself, the corresponding denial, and their not hearing or following physician advice - that is what we're talking about here.

To say that preventative care is not cheaper than major surgery is a medical/economic argument akin to intelligent design. It goes against all major research in both fields, has no basis in reality, and requires a willingness to come to a conclusion about something without having any undertaking in gathering actual facts first.

[UncleBob]

Lemme get this straight - your argument is that, all these unhealthy people are suddenly going to rush to the doctor to get told that they're unhealthy? Or do you propose mandatory health screenings as well?

[JolietJake]

If people are so worried about a lack of doctors, why not create incentives for people to enter medicine?

Of course one reason there is a lack of primary care physicians is that many doctors choose to specialize these days.

[UncleBob]

If people are so worried about a lack of doctors, why not create incentives for people to enter medicine?

Of course one reason there is a lack of primary care physicians is that many doctors choose to specialize these days.

Speaking of lack of Doctors, rumblings from the motherland about their lack of doctors and the fact that they have to ship in 1/3rd of them...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208663/Test-foreign-doctors-coming-practice-Britain-say-GP-leaders.html

[Msut77]

That is not what the article says Bob.

[UncleBob]

A third of primary care trusts are flying in GPs from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland because of a shortage of doctors in Britain willing to work in the evenings and at weekends.
Are you sure?

[thrustbucket]

People can live the way they want to.

But if they want to be worthless, unhealthy fat slobs, then they should pay higher premiums--not have everyone pay higher premiums to subsidize their more frequent need of health care. See the stats I posted earlier on the thread on how much an obese person accrues in a year in health care costs on average vs. people at healthy weight.

Just like people with perfect driving records get discounts, so should those of us who keep our selves in great shape and don't need to use the health care system very often.

The only ways to save money on health care spending are:

1. Get the populace, on average, healthier and needing medicine, surgery etc. less often.
2. Find a way to get costs charged to patients/billed to insurance down. Drugs, office visits, surgery's etc. all cost way more than they should as the health care system has become nothing but another capitalist system focused only on maximizing profits rather than providing the best and most efficient health care for patients.

You aren't going to do any of that without forcing people to get regular medical screenings and then have some complicated matrix to tell them how much they need to pay for medical care, etc - which opens the door for a whole mess of government-in-your-daily life arguments.

I haven't been to the gym since 2004. I eat one meal a day, that's usually fast food. I also have not been to the doctor in about 12 years. So by what you are saying I should have to pay more for medical insurance than you, even though I have used the healthcare system far less than those that I know that eat better and exercise more, right? I guess your logic is that I am a ticking time bomb, right?

If you are going to put forth this type of medical payment based on health proposal, then what about so-called healthy people that live dangerously? Why stop at the body? What about people that own motorcycles, get lots of speeding tickets, are known to mountain climb without the proper training or gear? Why are those not as valid to raise premiums? After all, it doesn't matter how healthy you are, if someone is known to speed around town on a bullet bike you are statistically a lot more likely to end up using the emergency room than a fat couch potato (most likely) - so why shouldn't they pay more for insurance as well?

It's always seemed to me that when it comes time to start pointing fingers at who should pay for all the "good ideas" coming out of Washington, the supporters almost always find ways to single out the people that are not them to do so.

I just don't get the argument that lifestyle tax should start and stop at exercise and eating right when there are many more factors in a persons lifestyle that makes them a statistically higher medical liability.

[Msut77]

Are you sure?

Shipping in "a third of doctors" is very different from a "third of primary care trusts" use out of country doctors for these shifts.

Also the problem isn't so much a lack of doctors as it is the doctors got a new contract limiting hours and allowing them to opt out of weekends.

[UncleBob]

So... a lack of doctors willing/able to work on weekends. What a great system, where you have plenty of doctors who don't want to work....

[mykevermin]

Lemme get this straight - your argument is that, all these unhealthy people are suddenly going to rush to the doctor to get told that they're unhealthy? Or do you propose mandatory health screenings as well?

My argument, and the argument of the literature in economics and medicine, is that people who don't have insurance and don't have much in the way of savings - in other words, those who can't afford medical care - don't go see a physician until their ailments are in a "dire need" situation.

Aren't you among the anti-health-care reform crowd who argues that "nobody is denied care in the US!" crowd? The same folks who argue that freeloaders sop up resources from emergency rooms and then never pay the bill, leaving good honest insurance-having americans to pay the residuals of their freeloading?

Well, if you believe that, then you would prefer that, if poor people are going to take "your money" by virtue of higher health care costs, they should be courteous enough to get occasional checkups so as to reduce the cost burden to you - because checkups are cheaper than major surgery and the stuff I listed above.

[Msut77]

So... a lack of doctors willing/able to work on weekends. What a great system, where you have plenty of doctors who don't want to work....

You do realize now the distinction between a "third of doctors" being flown in and a "third of primary care trusts" flying doctors correct?

Yes or no.

Because if you get it we can then move on to the distinction between "lack of doctors" and an adequate amount of doctors used inefficiently.

[dmaul1114]

now i agree partly with dmaul on #2. just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these cost way more than they should and would if covered by the individual.


That's not what I was saying. I was saying doctors shouldn't be charging so much for routine office visits. I'm going to have to go in soon just to tell mine that I need a new prescription for Allegra since I'm out of refills, and I'll pay a $15 copay and my insurance will get billed over $100 for the doctor doing no more than walking in, asking how I'm doing and writing me a prescription.

That's just absurd and there needs to be some way to cut back those kind of costs somehow--but I have no idea how to do so.

Now you're putting words in his mouth.

He said unhealthy slobs should pay more - not people with preexisting conditions.

Yep, pre-existing conditions should be covered 100%. All I was saying is there should be discounts for people who are healthy--body fat in the good ranges, don't smoke, blood pressure and choloesterol levels are good etc. etc.


Lemme get this straight - your argument is that, all these unhealthy people are suddenly going to rush to the doctor to get told that they're unhealthy? Or do you propose mandatory health screenings as well?

Insurance companies should require a yearly physical (that they pay for in full) for coverage to continue.

You aren't going to do any of that without forcing people to get regular medical screenings and then have some complicated matrix to tell them how much they need to pay for medical care, etc - which opens the door for a whole mess of government-in-your-daily life arguments.

I haven't been to the gym since 2004. I eat one meal a day, that's usually fast food. I also have not been to the doctor in about 12 years. So by what you are saying I should have to pay more for medical insurance than you, even though I have used the healthcare system far less than those that I know that eat better and exercise more, right? I guess your logic is that I am a ticking time bomb, right?

If you are going to put forth this type of medical payment based on health proposal, then what about so-called healthy people that live dangerously? Why stop at the body? What about people that own motorcycles, get lots of speeding tickets, are known to mountain climb without the proper training or gear? Why are those not as valid to raise premiums? After all, it doesn't matter how healthy you are, if someone is known to speed around town on a bullet bike you are statistically a lot more likely to end up using the emergency room than a fat couch potato (most likely) - so why shouldn't they pay more for insurance as well?

I just don't get the argument that lifestyle tax should start and stop at exercise and eating right when there are many more factors in a persons lifestyle that makes them a statistically higher medical liability.

I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.

Insurance, especially any public option, should pay for and require yearly physicals and people should be able to earn discounts on their premiums by meeting simple health standards in those physicals like not smoking, having body fat in the health range, blood pressure and choloesterol in the health ranges etc. It doesn't have to be a complex matrix, just keep it on simple indicators like those which everyone is familiar with and can easily understand.

The problem with doing the same for dangerous behavior is it's hard to track as it's not something that can be gauged in a yearly physical as people can just lie about riding motorcycles, rock climbing, sky diving etc.

And that just gets out of the bounds of health care. A goal of a health care system focused on prevention is to get as much of the citizenry as possible to take an interest of their health and at least do the bare minimums of keeping their weight in check, not smoking, keeping their blood pressure and cholesterol in check, etc.

As for you, if that's the way you're living, then yes you are a ticking time bomb. You may get way with if fine being younger. But keep living with no exercise, eating one shitty fast food meal a day etc. and you'll be lucky to make it past your 50's if you make it that far.

But I also don't support having a mandatory health care plan that people have to buy into either. People like you that don't give two shits about their health and don't go to the doctor shouldn't have to pay for comprehensive medical coverage. At the most they should have to pay for some barebones insurance that covers only emergency medical care so they're not leeching on everyone else when they finally have a heart attack or get in a car accident etc.

[thrustbucket]

I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.
We already have lifestyle taxes (cigarettes, etc) so why not have more I guess. It's interesting that you mention "safely" here though. How do you decide who lives safely?

Insurance, especially any public option, should pay for and require yearly physicals and people should be able to earn discounts on their premiums by meeting simple health standards in those physicals like not smoking, having body fat in the health range, blood pressure and choloesterol in the health ranges etc. It doesn't have to be a complex matrix, just keep it on simple indicators like those which everyone is familiar with and can easily understand.
I guess I am ok with some of that, as long as the laughable BMI scale is not involved. I think weight and even body fat is a poor indicator of health (and many scientists agree - generally a fat person that exercises regularly is healthier than a skinny person that doesn't). I am more ok with things like cholesterol levels allowing you to have a small bonus on your premiums.

The problem with doing the same for dangerous behavior is it's hard to track as it's not something that can be gauged in a yearly physical as people can just lie about riding motorcycles, rock climbing, sky diving etc.
What I was alluding to was a slippery slope (which you usually don't believe in, hisotorically). A lot of these suggestions open the door to things like neighbor spying.

Simply going by the history of how our government operates - as soon as you start giving a few harmless discounts for getting a pat on the head at a health screening, you WILL have legislators eventually trying to find other ways to measure how often a person is statistically likely to visit an emergency room based on anything they can possibly track in any way. That's just government.

So all I am saying is we need to be VERY Careful when opening any of those doors, scruitinizing just how important it is we do something like that and how beneficial it will be.

As for you, if that's the way you're living, then yes you are a ticking time bomb. You may get way with if fine being younger. But keep living with no exercise, eating one shitty fast food meal a day etc. and you'll be lucky to make it past your 50's if you make it that far.
Well that's your opinion, and maybe statistics are on your opinion's side, but everyone has heard a life-long chain smoker that lives into their 90's too. Life is always a dice roll - living a so-called healthy lifestyle simply gives you an extra die or two to roll, but doesn't guarantee what's rolled.

As for making it past my 50's, I hope you're right that I don't. My life philosophy is about burning out, not fading away. For some people it's about quality of life, not it's length - and if you don't enjoy eating expensive healthy food and exercising, why waste your precious few non-working hours doing so?

But I also don't support having a mandatory health care plan that people have to buy into either. People like you that don't give two shits about their health and don't go to the doctor shouldn't have to pay for comprehensive medical coverage. At the most they should have to pay for some barebones insurance that covers only emergency medical care so they're not leeching on everyone else when they finally have a heart attack or get in a car accident etc.
I agree with this.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You do realize now the distinction between a "third of doctors" being flown in and a "third of primary care trusts" flying doctors correct?

Yes or no.

Because if you get it we can then move on to the distinction between "lack of doctors" and an adequate amount of doctors used inefficiently.

I'll say no. Please elaborate on the distinction.

[camoor]

I see two camps.

The libertarian paradise camp and the reform camp.

Wake up call to all you budding libertarians - the system you are fighting so hard to save does not reflect your political philosophy.

I'm not saying a libertarian system wouldn't be a disaster (it would) but it's also never going to happen.

So you either throw in your chips now and get a realtively mildly reformed healthcare system.

Or risk a few epidemics, wait till the American healthcare system collapses under it's own weight (and it's going to be ugly), and your socialized medicine boogeyman will really come to visit.

Choice is yours.

[tivo]

That's not what I was saying. I was saying doctors shouldn't be charging so much for routine office visits. I'm going to have to go in soon just to tell mine that I need a new prescription for Allegra since I'm out of refills, and I'll pay a $15 copay and my insurance will get billed over $100 for the doctor doing no more than walking in, asking how I'm doing and writing me a prescription.

That's just absurd and there needs to be some way to cut back those kind of costs somehow--but I have no idea how to do so.

I proposed 2 ideas....

Just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these prices are higher than they should and would be if covered by the individual.

another issue that hasn't really been addressed here that would definitely save money is that health insurance should not be attached with one's employment. companies receive rediculous amounts of money from the government to help them pay for their employee;s insurance. cut that BS out. let everyone pay for the private insurance they want/need on an individual basis and offer discounts/rebates to individuals with insurance rather than only to companies (although id prefer not to have any discount/rebate from owning health insurance as what would stop the insurance companies from raising their prices by an equivalent amount).

both of these ideas make the individual price conscience and force them to shop around instead of allowing for a $150 routine check up that someone else will pay. It will also increase competition to some extent among hospitals/physicians as people choose with their own dollars on who to visit. However, notice that I've been saying price- medical care costs are unchangeable (e.g. $8 million for a new drug, $100 a day for Dr. office, etc)- but prices may be adjusted.


Yep, pre-existing conditions should be covered 100%. All I was saying is there should be discounts for people who are healthy--body fat in the good ranges, don't smoke, blood pressure and choloesterol levels are good etc. etc..

why shouldn't people who require more resources/services have to pay for it? Bigger people need more food; smaller cars need less fuel, etc. should their be one flat rate for purchasing any amount of anything? NO! So listen all you self-proclaimed compassionate people out there: life's not fair. everyone needs different amounts of everything and it is impossible to appropriate the right amount of resources to every person. that's where individuals can prioritize their expenditures and get at least the minimum of what they need (the gov. already steps in with medicaide. medicare, welfare checks, etc.). should a healthy person have to give up his hard earned money to pay for other's health care when he needs it on education, food, housing, etc. That's just stupid. now here's what I said again....


unhealthy people, or people with preexisting conditions, do pay, and should pay, higher premiums because they are more likely to require medical care. but there are laws in place that prevent insurance companies from excluding high risk people all together.


I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.

although that sounds impossible to monitor, if you'd want it, leave it up to the health insurance companies to decide what's "risky". the government definition of adequate health care or a healthy lifestyle would be completely arbitrary and meet their demands- along with other problems associated bureaucracy.


Insurance, especially any public option, should pay for and require yearly physicals.

Go to jail fat camp if you're not healthy enough. "universal health care" is really just pretty words for government mandates.

The problem with doing the same for dangerous behavior is it's hard to track as it's not something that can be gauged in a yearly physical as people can just lie about riding motorcycles, rock climbing, sky diving etc.

oh, so thats the problem- its hard to monitor the behavior. I thought it was the whole personal freedom thing.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Die, Joliet Jake, Die!

[dmaul1114]

both of these ideas make the individual price conscience and force them to shop around instead of allowing for a $150 routine check up that someone else will pay. It will also increase competition to some extent among hospitals/physicians as people choose with their own dollars on who to visit. However, notice that I've been saying price- medical care costs are unchangeable (e.g. $8 million for a new drug, $100 a day for Dr. office, etc)- but prices may be adjusted.


I don't like that. People should be able to be covered by insurance to go to the doctor when they need medicine for allergies etc. Doctors just shouldn't be charging $150 to the insurance companies for whats just a quick prescription visit.

why shouldn't people who require more resources/services have to pay for it? Bigger people need more food; smaller cars need less fuel, etc.

Because health care should be a right, not a privilege. People shouldn't have to pay more because they were born with asthma, had a genetic risk of cancer , were born with heart on brain defects etc. etc.

It's one thing to not give some discounts to fat slobs etc., its another to punish people sick from no fault of their own to pay higher costs for their required medical care.

It just gets at the whole problem of the health care industry. It never should have been a purely captialist endeavor ran by doctors, surgeons, and pharmaceutical companies out to maximize their profits first. Health care should be a basic right to citizens in any organized civilization and based more on a socialist/charitable framework where people work to improve quality of life first, and to get rich second.

although that sounds impossible to monitor, if you'd want it, leave it up to the health insurance companies to decide what's "risky". the government definition of adequate health care or a healthy lifestyle would be completely arbitrary and meet their demands- along with other problems associated bureaucracy.

That's just anti-government, paranoid nonsense.

There's a lot of good research on what's healthy bodyfat percentages are for age groups (not BMI, actual body fat percentages), healthy cholesterol levels, blood pressure, that smoking is a huge risk etc. etc.

Any policies for discounts for being healthy needs to be backed by a large body of research evidence on what the healthy ranges in tests for those conditions are. No need for some huge bureaucracy or for insurance companies to decide. Make it up to the CDC or NIH or the Surgeon General to set the thresholds. i.e. leave it to the experts.



oh, so thats the problem- its hard to monitor the behavior. I thought it was the whole personal freedom thing.

Again, people have personal freedom to be lazy fat slobs, to chain smoke, etc.. They just won't earn the discounts in premiums that those of us who take care of ourselves can and will have to pay the base rate.

There's no government control there. Each individual can decide if they want to make some changes to try to be healthy--both to feel better, live longer etc., as well as to get some discounts on premiums just like safe drivers do on auto insurance.

I'm not talking huge discounts. Maybe just 5-10% breaks each year if you are in the healthy ranges in your yearly physical. Something to give lazy slobs some added incentive to get in shape, and to give those of us in tip top shape a small break in our premiums.

Those who want to stay on the couch eating chips and fast food all the time can do so, and just pay a premium 5-10% higher than people who passed their yearly physicals in the healthy categories and earned the discount.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

By premiums, you mean tax percent, right?

[dmaul1114]

By premiums, you mean tax percent, right?

Depends on the system.

For private insurance, or a public option that people have to pay into, it would be a reduction on premiums.

If it was totally universal, government ran insurance, then yeah it would be a tax break.

I more support the first, vs. universal health care. There needs to be a cheaper, public option for people who don't get benefits from their job to buy into (and hopefully force all private premiums down some). But I think going to totally government ran insurance is too extreme. I think with a public option private insurance will drop prices and find a way to compete by offering access to more doctors etc. than the public option--so I'm not one who thinks any public option will kill off private insurance.

[thrustbucket]

I see two camps.

The libertarian paradise camp and the reform camp.

Wake up call to all you budding libertarians - the system you are fighting so hard to save does not reflect your political philosophy.
It could also be called the "Pretty happy with most of the way the country was founded" camp and the "We need to completely overhaul everything" camp.

Kidding aside, I don't consider myself 100% libertarian. If I were, I wouldn't care what others thought or did to the extent that I wouldn't frequent this forum.

I'm not saying a libertarian system wouldn't be a disaster (it would) but it's also never going to happen.
I am not even sure what a libertarian healthcare system would look like. We haven't had anything close to that, to my knowledge, in 150 years. As soon as soon as the two-way door of influence starts swinging between government and any industry - it's not a libertarian system.

So you either throw in your chips now and get a realtively mildly reformed healthcare system.
I think I, and everyone else you are probably referring to, understand that. We realize change has to happen and will happen. We are just very concerned what flavor that change comes in and what possible slippery slopes it creates for the future.

We are talking about something that will be the most costly endeavor in American History. Not only that, but something that will affect every American directly as long as America exists. That's no small potatoes. And even the most ardent supporter of the most costly single payer system, etc. should not support ANY bill that hasn't been over a fine tooth comb by every single voting member of our government. And it would help if our own president could answer basic questions about how it would work in practice.

It isn't an overstatement to say that this magnitude of change and cost has the potential to change the face of America, for better or worse, more so than anything since the Constitution was written.


Choice is yours.

Per the above, the only choice I am making is the "whatever you do, be super fucking careful" choice. When it starts to feel like rushed change for changes sake, I'm not on board, neither are most Americans.

[JolietJake]

Die, Joliet Jake, Die!
Oh there are so many here who wish i would....:lol:

[Msut77]

We are talking about something that will be the most costly endeavor in American History.

That it literally meaningless in light of the fact that it isn't as if the money wouldn't have been spent on health care anyway.

Done right reform means savings in the Trillions over the years.

When it starts to feel like rushed change for changes sake...

Strawman and a half.

Again for the umpteenth time reform as in Universal Healthcare was considered seriously since 1948, has been practically been incrementally moved towards since then and almost enacted in the early 90's. Also other countries have done it for decades this isn't new territory by any means.

I am not even sure what a libertarian healthcare system would look like.

An Alms Bowl and self surgery.

[tivo]

i completely disagree with you dmaul1114. you sound like some high schooler who's spent too much time listening to the art teachers. I see problems in every idea you propose and will cease any further conversation with you. You can count that as a 'Win' if it'll make you feel better.

[elprincipe]

To say that preventative care is not cheaper than major surgery is a medical/economic argument akin to intelligent design. It goes against all major research in both fields, has no basis in reality, and requires a willingness to come to a conclusion about something without having any undertaking in gathering actual facts first.

DId you read what I wrote? Of course it's cheaper for the person that has something wrong with them. That's obvious. But, for example, to test 1,000 people at $100 a pop is more expensive than one person spending $5,000 for surgery. Do we want to prevent people from needing that surgery, and the pain and suffering that comes with it? Of course we do. But to pretend it's cheaper is just fantasy for many "preventative" measures. Of course, there are some things that can be done that do save money; nobody is disputing that, just the notion that all/most of them save money and it's a magic bullet. It isn't.

See here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

http://content.nejm.org/content/vol358/issue7/images/medium/01t1.gif

[docvinh]

why shouldn't people who require more resources/services have to pay for it? Bigger people need more food; smaller cars need less fuel, etc. should their be one flat rate for purchasing any amount of anything? NO! So listen all you self-proclaimed compassionate people out there: life's not fair. everyone needs different amounts of everything and it is impossible to appropriate the right amount of resources to every person. that's where individuals can prioritize their expenditures and get at least the minimum of what they need (the gov. already steps in with medicaide. medicare, welfare checks, etc.). should a healthy person have to give up his hard earned money to pay for other's health care when he needs it on education, food, housing, etc. That's just stupid. now here's what I said again....





So people with preexisting conditions are just screwed, huh? I'm glad you're okay with that.

[HowStern]

DId you read what I wrote? Of course it's cheaper for the person that has something wrong with them. That's obvious. But, for example, to test 1,000 people at $100 a pop is more expensive than one person spending $5,000 for surgery. Do we want to prevent people from needing that surgery, and the pain and suffering that comes with it? Of course we do. But to pretend it's cheaper is just fantasy for many "preventative" measures. Of course, there are some things that can be done that do save money; nobody is disputing that, just the notion that all/most of them save money and it's a magic bullet. It isn't.

See here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

http://content.nejm.org/content/vol358/issue7/images/medium/01t1.gif


Where in the fuck do you get the statistic that only one out of 1,000 people will need surgery? And where do you go to get $5000 surgery!? Gastric-bypass surgery has an average list price of $35,552 and for some reason skyrockets to $59,500 in the south. (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P148388.asp)


Obviously some surgeries are cheaper than others but to assume $5000 is the average cost is pushing it. Maybe in India. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Heart-Surgery-Costs---Why-You-Should-Consider-India&id=102032)

Preventive care is no magic bullet but it sure is a step in the right direction.

[JolietJake]

Well i tried to attend the local town hall meeting tonight but didn't get in. I did meet some rather...interesting people though. A couple of women who embodied everything i hate about people who are anti-reform.

When asked by someone standing in line what they should do for health care (they were uninsured) the women told them to "just go to an ER, they have to take you" Then one of them blurted out one of the dumbest things i've heard since this debate started, "Thars insurance on thuh innernet, or so ah've heard."

No those aren't my typos or spelling mistakes, that's just how they sounded. The sad thing is that this is the typical anti-reform person in the area. I wish i could have recorded them saying this, it would have been a hit on youtube.

[tivo]

So people with preexisting conditions are just screwed, huh? I'm glad you're okay with that.

not totally screwed because they still get access to healthcare and insurance companies are prevented by law from dropping them all together. they just have to pay a greater rate because they are more likely to call in sick (aka, their share).

DONT START WITH THAT BULLSHIT. people are born with different advantages and disadvantages- life is no utopia. saying what you just said doesn't make you more compassionate or morally superior or anything, except make you sound stupid.

[The Crotch]

...

I am lost.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

...

I am lost.

<Grabs The Crotch's hand.>

<Walks The Crotch to the nearest ditch>

This is where Joliet Jake's future is.

...

Are you still lost?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

This deathcare will be the death of us all. You cant tax people back to good health.http://cli.gs/cagus.smile.jpg

You also can't have healthcare costs increase faster than GDP and personal income forever, too.

[docvinh]

not totally screwed because they still get access to healthcare and insurance companies are prevented by law from dropping them all together. they just have to pay a greater rate because they are more likely to call in sick (aka, their share).

DONT START WITH THAT BULLSHIT. people are born with different advantages and disadvantages- life is no utopia. saying what you just said doesn't make you more compassionate or morally superior or anything, except make you sound stupid.

Hey, if you're okay with it, why are you getting pissed off? Furthermore, at what extra rate do they have to pay, what if they can't afford it? Then they're just screwed, right?

[JolietJake]

<Grabs The Crotch's hand.>

<Walks The Crotch to the nearest ditch>

This is where Joliet Jake's future is.

...

Are you still lost?
Well with the shitty economy i may very well end up digging my own ditch.:lol:

[RAMSTORIA]

And where do you go to get $5000 surgery!?

that makes sense. for every 50k surgery there are surgeries that only cost a few hundred. surgeries can be considered things like draining a bruised knee & removing a wart.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

MOC's breast reduction cost 19K.

Caitlyn's ear tubes cost 4K.

[The Crotch]

<Grabs The Crotch's hand.>

<Walks The Crotch to the nearest ditch>

This is where Joliet Jake's future is.

...

Are you still lost?
Yes. Something's missing from the thread. Either someone deleted a post, or tivo edited out a bunch of stuff.

I don't recall anything in the way of details. I just remember that the deleted/edited stuff kinda came out of nowhere.

[willardhaven]

Our money will be so worthless soon that some of you guys will be begging for government health care.

[tivo]

^^ what's making our money worthless?

answer- government spending and programs that create a loss; they'd be out of business if they weren't able to print money

[perdition(troy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

And you guys whined about our privacy disappearing under W

[willardhaven]

You are either going to have to strengthen the government against corporate interference, or throw a bone to the starving. You small government people should try working in a shirt factory.

[thrustbucket]

I'd love to work in a shirt factory that's government subsidized.
---

It sounds like meaningful reform will cost more than we can afford.

In the past, when countries come up against the inevitable "We need this but can't afford it" problems, they just go conquer another country and ravage it's resources. Now that we don't have the stomach for that, it seems we have no real solution other than dig the ditch of "progress" deeper and cross fingers.

[fullmetalfan720]

Our money will be so worthless soon that some of you guys will be begging for government health care.
Yup. Unfortunately, when that time comes, there won't be a federal government to bail you out.
^^ what's making our money worthless?

answer- government spending and programs that create a loss; they'd be out of business if they weren't able to print money
Not so much. It's mainly the mentality of "too big to fail," and government handing trillions to their friends on Wall Street. We can't keep doing this. You can't just keep printing money, and not expect the dollar to collapse. With all of these damn bailouts, that's exactly what is going to happen. Not programs running at a loss.

[HowStern]

that makes sense. for every 50k surgery there are surgeries that only cost a few hundred. surgeries can be considered things like draining a bruised knee & removing a wart.

Yeah but surgeries that small aren't the type of thing we are going to spend a lot money on with preventative care. Ya know?

It's the heart diseases and cancers.

And to assume, like whoever did, that for every 1,000 people we will spend only $5000 on surgeries for one of them is nuts considering our obesity levels.

[willardhaven]

I'd love to work in a shirt factory that's government subsidized.
---

It sounds like meaningful reform will cost more than we can afford.

In the past, when countries come up against the inevitable "We need this but can't afford it" problems, they just go conquer another country and ravage it's resources. Now that we don't have the stomach for that, it seems we have no real solution other than dig the ditch of "progress" deeper and cross fingers.

We have enough farmland to produce food for the entire country. We can manufacture things in a clean, sustainable manner. This will create research, science, manufacturing, financial and all sorts of jobs. The first step is to throw all the multinational corporations out of D.C. Don't get me wrong, I am all for international trade, just not allowing companies to be bigger than most nations.

[elprincipe]

Where in the fuck do you get the statistic that only one out of 1,000 people will need surgery? And where do you go to get $5000 surgery!? Gastric-bypass surgery has an average list price of $35,552 and for some reason skyrockets to $59,500 in the south. (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P148388.asp)


Obviously some surgeries are cheaper than others but to assume $5000 is the average cost is pushing it. Maybe in India. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Heart-Surgery-Costs---Why-You-Should-Consider-India&id=102032)

Preventive care is no magic bullet but it sure is a step in the right direction.

It was a made-up example, I made that clear. Sorry you have trouble reading.

It's easy to just say "it's a step in the right direction" without actually looking at the facts, which say otherwise (I'm talking about cost alone here).

[Msut77]

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 22,000 a year.

How many 9/11s is that?

[tivo]

^^

looking at the site + its resources + their resources, I came to the equation used to estimate the "number of deaths resulting from uninsurance" and it pointed to 3 different studies that found that uninsurance increases mortality by around 25% btw ages 25-65. However, I couldn't find the duration of time without insurance to be classified as uninsured. It looks to be around 8.25% (greater than a year uninsured), or 25% (greater than 6 months), or 33% (greater than 1 month) of all 262 million Americans under 65 would be classified as uninsured, thus throwing equation into very complex ranges as they split up the data based on age, morality rate, uninsurance rate,etc. so its pretty wishy-washy math to get the 22,000 death/yr but if the order of magnitudes is correct, around ten thousand excess deaths a yr. adds up to serious $$ in GDP losses, even if they are typically blue collared workers in low quality industries.


so, good point msut77.

however, looking at purely the economics (since I'm ok with a few extra deaths each year *cough* *dovinch*cough*), around X% of medicaid (X% of $330 billion in 2005) adding up to $X MILLION DOLLARS are spent on administering said medicaid. expanding medicaid from ~50 million to ~300 million people to pick up the ~47 million uninsured (and reduce excess deaths) will definitely cause HUGE losses (I estimate at least $100 million a year when considering eliminating Medicare as well) if massive efficiencies aren't in place in government administration costs.

^^ that's wrong. administration costs are way higher than that. I haven't found exact numbers though. Here's something else though on "How are providers paid by medicaid"

Hospitals, for example, received Medicaid
payments averaging 96% of their costs in 2000,
though that percentage varied widely from state
to state.

from:http://www.nami.org/NAMI-Medicaid_Facts.pdf (http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Public_Policy/Policy_Research_Institute/NAMI-Medicaid_Facts.pdf)

so in the above example, hospitals take a 4% hit from every medicaid case they perform (I assume, I haven't read anything about copay). Other providers aren't paid in full as well. Can someone make sense of this for me? how does this system work? Do the hospitals just put up with it. Does it come out of physcian's salaries or past on to other patients. I mean, the other 96% of medicaid is paid by tax payers but this just seems like crooked dealings coming from the government to make healthcare providers put up with it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

however, looking at purely the economics (since I'm ok with a few extra deaths each year *cough* *dovinch*cough*), around 3% of medicaid (3% of $330 billion in 2005) adding up to $90 MILLION DOLLARS are spent on administering said medicaid. expanding medicaid from ~50 million to ~300 million people to pick up the ~47 million uninsured (and reduce excess deaths) will definitely cause HUGE losses (I estimate at least $100 million a year when considering eliminating Medicare as well) if massive efficiencies aren't in place in government administration costs.

The only insurance with no administrative overhead is no insurance.

[Msut77]

The only insurance with no administrative overhead is no insurance.

Private insurance companies have like what 20% overhead?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Private insurance companies have like what 20% overhead?

That is only if you include advertising and the additional monies you have to spend on salespeople.

[HowStern]

It was a made-up example, I made that clear. Sorry you have trouble reading.

It's easy to just say "it's a step in the right direction" without actually looking at the facts, which say otherwise (I'm talking about cost alone here).

It was abundantly clear that it was a made up example by how incredibly dumb it was. My point was that it was absurd and unsubstantiated.

Sorry you have trouble reading.

[elprincipe]

It was abundantly clear that it was a made up example by how incredibly dumb it was. My point was that it was absurd and unsubstantiated.

Sorry you have trouble reading.

Okay, you want real-life examples, look at the study I quoted. Good enough? You sure didn't look at it when I posted it, since you then proceeded to ignore it completely and continue the misinformation campaign on the subject. Puzzling, really.

[HowStern]

Okay, you want real-life examples,
Yeah real-life examples would be nice. You told me in your last post in the very same paragraph that your example was made up and that I was ignoring facts. Bit silly, no?

look at the study I quoted. Good enough? You sure didn't look at it when I posted it, since you then proceeded to ignore it completely and continue the misinformation campaign on the subject. Puzzling, really.

You're right. I did ignore it because it was accompanied by a ridiculous self-admittedly made-up example. If you want someone to pay attention to what you have to say then don't talk gibberish.

You're own graph shows 4 cost-saving vs 2 cost-increasing preventative measures. So, only half of preventative measures are more costly by your own link. The rest being QALY figures that open the door to whole other debate.

[Msut77]

I’ll be danged if I am going to give up my Social Security because of socialism, and I'll be danged if I am going to give up my Medicare because of socialism!

The above was from a small fry con politician at a Michelle Bachman Healthcare forum.

Why yes, he was wearing a top hat.

[JolietJake]

Wow, at least the folks in my story were nobodies.

[fullmetalfan720]

The above was from a small fry con politician at a Michelle Bachman Healthcare forum.

Why yes, he was wearing a top hat.
I'm so glad that the debate has turned from policy to bitching at each other.

[mykevermin]

Moreover, elprincipe, the few examples given that have a high $/QALY ratio are rather extreme examples of "preventative care."

Compare testing all 65yos for diabeetus as opposed to 65yos w/ hypertension. More expensive, yep. Loads of false positives, and loads of wasted tests.

So I think that, in defining "preventative care," I'd agree that we need to find a balance in terms of what it is. It would be foolish to test me every morning for HIV given cost given resources, and given my severe lack of risk factors for the illness. Likewise, testing all 65yos for diabetes as opposed to cases that show risk factors is going to drastically be more expensive - because the larger population of folks being tested are LESS LIKELY to have diabetes, precisely because the high-risk-factor population is already being tested.

But isn't testing the high-risk factor population preventative care? I think it is.

So preventative care doesn't mean testing everyone for everything all the time. But it does mean careful management of resources and testing people for the things that they may have in order to provide them with care that is much cheaper up front than it could be later.

[RAMSTORIA]

Yeah but surgeries that small aren't the type of thing we are going to spend a lot money on with preventative care. Ya know?

It's the heart diseases and cancers.

And to assume, like whoever did, that for every 1,000 people we will spend only $5000 on surgeries for one of them is nuts considering our obesity levels.

oh i know, i deal with this stuff every day. im just saying that the $5000 average makes sense. that being said, using the same argument the 1 in 1000 number is completely absurd. more like 1 in 50.

[elprincipe]

Moreover, elprincipe, the few examples given that have a high $/QALY ratio are rather extreme examples of "preventative care."

Compare testing all 65yos for diabeetus as opposed to 65yos w/ hypertension. More expensive, yep. Loads of false positives, and loads of wasted tests.

So I think that, in defining "preventative care," I'd agree that we need to find a balance in terms of what it is. It would be foolish to test me every morning for HIV given cost given resources, and given my severe lack of risk factors for the illness. Likewise, testing all 65yos for diabetes as opposed to cases that show risk factors is going to drastically be more expensive - because the larger population of folks being tested are LESS LIKELY to have diabetes, precisely because the high-risk-factor population is already being tested.

But isn't testing the high-risk factor population preventative care? I think it is.

So preventative care doesn't mean testing everyone for everything all the time. But it does mean careful management of resources and testing people for the things that they may have in order to provide them with care that is much cheaper up front than it could be later.

Sure, absolutely. I just get a little agitated when people say "preventative care will solve all our problems" from a cost perspective. It won't. People like to think there are easy answers for our fiscal situation, and "preventative care" is being billed by some as a, or even the, silver bullet. That is just irresponsible and political pandering.

[dmaul1114]

Preventative care is not a silver bullet, but it can drop costs.

But it has to be coupled with just reigning in costs some how. Office visits and many procedures just cost ridiculous amounts. Again, a doctor shouldn't be charging insurance $150 to spend 2 minutes with a patient asking how they are and just writing them a new prescription when they just came in as they were out of refills, or some other simple question that only took a couple minutes.

[mykevermin]

Sure, absolutely. I just get a little agitated when people say "preventative care will solve all our problems" from a cost perspective. It won't. People like to think there are easy answers for our fiscal situation, and "preventative care" is being billed by some as a, or even the, silver bullet. That is just irresponsible and political pandering.

But I still disagree - *well managed* preventative care will reduce costs. Good on you for the study you cited and the chart you showed, but I would argue that there's kind of a weird coding dichotomy in that chart you showed. Back to the diabetes testing, they compare the cost/benefit gains of testing all 65yos (and not just w/ hypertension) as the "preventative" group and just those w/ hypertension as the "control" (i.e., non-preventative) group. Which appears really strange on the surface, you know? Both attempt to stave off more harmful illnesses.

When I say "well managed preventative care," I mean one that's based on medical research on risk factors, at least in part. When you go to the doctor and they give you basic advice on maintaining your health (exercise more, eat fewer sausages), that's preventative care. But targeted preventative care would identify your risk factors and family history to decide if some tests are necessary and not others.

For instance, given my family history, I'm going to get cancer in my 60's. Virtually assured. If not sooner. So I'm going to want annual tests once I hit a certain age. But if you don't have that background, it's less crucial to do it annually. But I won't need an annual mammogram, on the other hand, so that's money not spent on me.

Management of risk factors and targeted preventative care are important, and, I believe, will reduce costs.

[Msut77]

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/texas-republican-pete-olsons-major-he

Every time you think they cannot sink any lower...

[fullmetalfan720]

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/texas-republican-pete-olsons-major-he

Every time you think they cannot sink any lower...
Again with this, "attack opposition, deflect from real issues" mentality. How many times have you done this now?

[Msut77]

That is only if you include advertising and the additional monies you have to spend on salespeople.

I have heard numbers as high as 31%, one actually hopes at this point that includes advertising etc.

[tivo]

I edited my post from pg 60. the administrative costs are definitely higher. I blame all that mental strain I put into researching the validity of sMuts77's post. anyway, the administrative costs of medicaid D.N.E. to the public.Here's something else....


"How are providers paid by medicaid" from:http://www.nami.org/NAMI-Medicaid_Facts.pdf (http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Public_Policy/Policy_Research_Institute/NAMI-Medicaid_Facts.pdf)
"Hospitals, for example, received Medicaid
payments averaging 96% of their costs in 2000,
though that percentage varied widely from state
to state."

so in the above example, hospitals take a 4% hit from every medicaid case they perform (I assume, there's no copay). Other providers aren't paid in full as well. Can someone make sense of this for me? how does this system work? Do the hospitals just put up with it. Does it come out of physcian's salaries or past on to other patients. I mean, the other 96% of medicaid is paid by tax payers but this just seems like crooked dealings coming from the government to make healthcare providers put up with being short changed.

[dopa345]

I actually agree with myke. Preventative care will reduce health care costs. However, in order to optimize this benefit, people *gasp* actually have to go see their doctors on a regular basis which simply doesn't happen due to human nature. I can't tell you how many times I admit patients with strokes who (or their family if the patient can no longer talk) swear up and down that they've been healthy all their lives since "they hadn't needed to see a doctor in over 20 years." Meanwhile, they've had uncontrolled hypertension and undiagnosed diabetes all this time which has no overt symptoms initially until it's too late. Provide incentives to see (or penalties in not seeing) your primary physician at least once a year. Medicare, in its present form, doesn't even cover an annual physical.

Tort reform is also another major issue that hasn't even been touched. You want to emulate national health care systems in Canada and Europe? Fine, then cap damages like they do (in Canada for example, a verdict over a million dollars is unheard of) and implement a "loser pays" system. Even better, have malpractice cases decided by expert panels in conjunction with trial judges rather than have an uninformed jury decide cases. That would immediately save billions of dollars in deterring frivolous lawsuits and malpractice premiums would plummet and the savings would be passed on to patient care. Of course the trial lawyers would lose out and since most legislators started out as lawyers, this won't ever be seriously considered.

Also in regards to tivo's post, keep in mind that statistic probably doesn't take into account that cases often get rejected by government payers. In Massachusetts for example, MassHealth (the Medicaid equivalent) denies almost 1 in 4 claims outright, basically stiffing the doctor and the hospital in those cases. I can't think of many other industries where a service is provided before payment and the payer can unilaterally decide not to pay. Even if you are paid eventually, it takes at least a month to get reimbursed. Hospitals and doctors are squeezed already in the current system, we shouldn't have to be squeezed any further.

I actually wrote a blog entry (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/blog.php?b=8395) touching on this in case anyone is interested.

[mykevermin]

I would support a loser pays system of malpractice suits.

[tivo]

I actually agree with myke. Preventative care will reduce health care costs. However, in order to optimize this benefit, people *gasp* actually have to go see their doctors on a regular basis which simply doesn't happen due to human nature. I can't tell you how many times I admit patients with strokes who (or their family if the patient can long longer talk) swear up and down that they've been healthy all their lives since "they hadn't needed to see a doctor in over 20 years." Meanwhile, they've had uncontrolled hypertension and undiagnosed diabetes all this time which has no overt symptoms initially until it's too late. Provide incentives to see (or penalties in not seeing) your primary physician at least once a year. Medicare, in its present form, doesn't even cover an annual physical.

Tort reform is also another major issue that hasn't even been touched. You want to emulate national health care systems in Canada and Europe? Fine, then cap damages like they do (in Canada for example, a verdict over a million dollars is unheard of) and implement a "loser pays" system. Even better, have malpractice cases decided by expert panels in conjunction with trial judges rather than have an uninformed jury decide cases. That would immediately save billions of dollars in deterring frivolous lawsuits and malpractice premiums would plummet and the savings would be passed on to patient care. Of course the trial lawyers would lose out and since most legislators started out as lawyers, this won't ever be seriously considered.

Also in regards to tivo's post, keep in mind that statistic probably doesn't take into account that cases often get rejected by government payers. In Massachusetts for example, MassHealth (the Medicaid equivalent) denies almost 1 in 4 claims outright, basically stiffing the doctor and the hospital in those cases. I can't think of many other industries where a service is provided before payment and the payer can unilaterally decide not to pay. Even if you are paid eventually, it takes at least a month to get reimbursed. Hospitals and doctors are squeezed already in the current system, we shouldn't have to be squeezed any further.

I actually wrote a blog entry (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/blog.php?b=8395) touching on this in case anyone is interested.

good post so I read the blog entry. learned a few things too with the MassHealth (get it together Mitt) and the rehab rule in medicare. But I don't believe preventative medicine would be worth it economically. Lookat the leading causes of preventative death: Smoking, Overweight and Obesity, Alcohol Consumption, infections, toxins, motor vehicle crashes, firearms, STD's, drug use. We've been trying to prevent many of those deaths for Years! Everything from D.A.R.E. to the war on obesity, to sex and alcohol education of the youth and the deaths are as high as ever. programs have put millions into solving these issues but there are no solutions to these problems. If you disagree, read up on the "unconstrained vision" (http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/11/26/wallace.htm) and let me know if that fits you.

[Msut77]

http://coloradoindependent.com/36840/bachmann-slit-our-wrists-be-blood-brothers%E2%80%99-to-beat-health-care-reform

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://coloradoindependent.com/36840/bachmann-slit-our-wrists-be-blood-brothers%E2%80%99-to-beat-health-care-reform
“battle will be won – on our knees in prayer and fasting.” (http://minnesotaindependent.com/42612/bachmann-prayer-and-fasting-will-help-defeat-health-care-reform)

Have to half agree. Fasting could lower obesity. Lower obesity would lower aggregate health care costs. Score one for broken clocks.

[tivo]

Obama at 45% approval rating (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

[RAMSTORIA]

I have heard numbers as high as 31%, one actually hopes at this point that includes advertising etc.

3.4% profit margin...


One of the fresh spectacles we're likely to enjoy this fall is moral outrage—real or feigned—over health insurance companies that may or may not be rapacious.

President Obama has already singled out insurers as the villains responsible for exorbitant healthcare costs that are bankrupting families and businesses and making care unattainable for millions. Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has asked 52 insurance providers for detailed data on pay and perks for executives, junkets for employees, and other ways they spend the money that comes from premiums paid by policyholders.

[See the industries hurt most by soaring healthcare costs.]

It seems likely that such an ambitious fishing expedition will reel in a few morsels useful for tarring the whole industry. But on the whole, blaming insurance firms for runaway healthcare costs is a weak argument, because the insurance industry isn't all that profitable to start with.

Some critics would like to see a healthcare sector that's entirely nonprofit, but most Americans seem comfortable with the existing system of for-profit healthcare providers, at least at some levels. Otherwise, the majority of Americans wouldn't say they're satisfied with their existing coverage, and there wouldn't be so much discomfort over the idea of government-funded healthcare. So if you're comfortable with the profit motive, the next step is to determine a fair profit margin for companies in the healthcare industry. This is where there's bad news for Obama, Waxman, et al.

[See the trouble with healthcare reform, in numbers.]

Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin. Right behind that were healthcare real-estate trusts (firms that are basically the landlords for hospitals and healthcare facilities) and application-software (think Windows). The worst performer was copper, with a profit margin of minus 56.6 percent.

If you're wondering about Exxon, with its history of gargantuan profits, its profit margin was 9 percent over the past 12 months, according to the research firm Capital IQ. The average for the oil and gas industry overall was 10.2 percent, three times the margin in the health insurance industry. And that's nothing compared with high-fliers like Google—which had a 20.6 percent margin—and Microsoft, at 24.9 percent.

Profit margins basically reflect the percentage of revenue left over after paying salaries, expenses, taxes and lots of other things. So it's possible for firms to pay their executives a lot and still have a low profit margin. That's why Merrill Lynch, as an example, was able to pay huge bonuses to some employees while the company itself lost epic amounts of money.

[See 8 industries that will sit out a recovery.]

Government interrogators are unlikely to find abuses on that scale among health insurers. While the rest of the economy has collapsed, most parts of the healthcare sector have remained reasonably stable. So odds are that any bonuses paid at least went out of profitable firms. With profits in many other industries depressed, health insurance profit margins probably rank higher than they normally would, compared with other industries. And a number of health insurance organizations, such as Kaiser and the Blue Cross plans, are nonprofits. They can still pay high salaries, but since there's no stock or stock options, there are fewer ways for big shots to earn lavish bonuses.

Among the large, for-profit health insurers, profit margins line up with the industry as a whole. UnitedHealthGroup, the biggest health insurer, had a 4.1 percent profit margin over the past 12 months. WellPoint, the next biggest, had a 4 percent profit margin. Aetna, Cigna, and Humana came in below that.

Health insurers turn out to be underperformers compared with the other parts of the healthcare sector. Pharmaceutical companies have a profit margin of 16.4 percent—seventh highest of the 215 industries that Morningstar tracks. Others segments of healthcare with margins well above the median include healthcare information (9.4 percent), home healthcare firms (8.5 percent), medical labs (8.2 percent), and generic drugmakers (6.5 percent).

The big money, in other words, isn't in the insurance industry. If it's anywhere, it's in the pharmaceutical industry. But the Obamanauts appear to have reached a kind of détente with Big Pharma in exchange for that industry's tepid support for some kind of reform. So Obama and his foot soldiers need to look elsewhere for black hats.

[See why your health insurer might have had trouble running "Cash for Clunkers."]

To give a clearer picture of which healthcare firms are earning the most, I've compiled some data from Capital IQ showing net profit margins over the past 12 months for a number of well-known companies. The following list includes the three largest firms in each of five different sectors: biotechnology, drug manufacturers, healthcare plans, healthcare services, and medical equipment. Some of these numbers are sure to be off-putting to Americans who are making sacrifices to pay for healthcare or can't afford it at all. Yet industries like pharma and biotech remain strong job creators that have held up well during the recession, and they represent parts of the global economy where America still enjoys a leading position. If you were Obama, desperate to find a few bright spots in a troubled economy, you might be reluctant to pick on them.

Amgen (biotechnology): Profit margin, 30.6 percent
Gilead Sciences (biotechnology): 37.6 percent
Celgene Corp. (biotechnology): 11.9 percent
Johnson & Johnson (drug manufacturer): 20.8 percent
Pfizer (drug manufacturer): 16.3 percent
GlaxoSmithKline (drug manufacturer): 17.4 percent
Unitedhealth Group (healthcare plans): 4.1 percent
WellPoint (healthcare plans): 4 percent
Aetna (healthcare plans): 3.9 percent
MedcoHealth Solutions (healthcare services): 2.1 percent
Express Scripts (healthcare services): 3.7 percent
Quest Diagnostics (healthcare services): 8.7 percent
Medtronic (medical equipment): 14.9 percent
Baxter International (medical equipment): 17.5 percent
Covidien (medical equipment): 12.3 percent
Sources: Morningstar; Capital IQ. Similar data on the most recently quarterly profit margins for a number of industries and firms are available on the Web at the Yahoo Finance Industry Center.




http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

[elprincipe]

Obama at 45% approval rating (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

This poll is actually an outlier, always lower approval ratings than all the other polls. Here is a better picture, an average of several polls (it shows 51.5% approval):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[Msut77]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/maria-bartiromo-presses-4_n_274024.html?f=1

http://dealbreaker.com/2007/07/great-moments-in-financial-his.php

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/maria-bartiromo-presses-4_n_274024.html?f=1

http://dealbreaker.com/2007/07/great-moments-in-financial-his.php
Does this really matter?

[Msut77]

I would support a loser pays system of malpractice suits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=az9qxQZNmf0o

It isn't completely irrelevant but the issue simply isn't that big of a deal when it comes to how fubar our system is.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=az9qxQZNmf0o

It isn't completely irrelevant but the issue simply isn't that big of a deal when it comes to how fubar our system is.
It's not so much our health care system, but our country.

[UncleBob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YtcmmYOesk

"If they stand up and start asking questions [...] start chanting "Health Care Now!"

I forget, which group was asking like children at Health Care Townhalls?

[RAMSTORIA]

damn liberals, biting off the fingers of the elderly. how low can they go!

[Msut77]

The Public Option plan is the only one the CBO has scored entirely.

There has been a lot of blather of how we "can't afford a trillion dollar bill", meanwhile in realityville it is not going to cost that much anyway, the real costs would be about a quarter of that.

Also it is not as if a trillion dollars is some stupendous amount in the context of how much we spend on health care especially over a 10 year period.

[fullmetalfan720]

damn liberals, biting off the fingers of the elderly. how low can they go!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32679571/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. - California authorities say a clash between opponents and supporters of health care reform ended with one man biting off another man's finger.Ventura County Sheriff's Capt. Frank O'Hanlon says about 100 people demonstrating in favor of health care reforms rallied Wednesday night on a street corner. One protester walked across the street to confront about 25 counter-demonstrators.
O'Hanlon says the man got into an argument and fist fight, during which he bit off the left pinky of a 65-year-old man who opposed health care reform.
At this rate, we will have riots in the streets by December!

[homeland]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32679571/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
At this rate, we will have riots in the streets by December!

Curious if the 65 year old guy was going to use his medicare for the hospital bill.

[fullmetalfan720]

Curious if the 65 year old guy was going to use his medicare for the hospital bill.
He did.

[Msut77]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03kristof.html

[tivo]

^^ compares health care to fire departments.

that show me that he has no idea how fire departments work, let alone health care.

pretty bad argument Msut. I understand why you didn't accompany the link with any of your own "thoughts".

[IRHari]

good thing the old man has government run health care...maybe the liberal was trying to make an overall point?

[dmaul1114]

Another good Newsweek article on lies about the health care plan.


The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate

By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK

Published Aug 29, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009

To the credit of opponents of health-care reform, the lies and exaggerations they're spreading are not made up out of whole cloth—which makes the misinformation that much more credible. Instead, because opponents demand that everyone within earshot (or e-mail range) look, say, "at page 425 of the House bill!," the lies take on a patina of credibility. Take the claim in one chain e-mail that the government will have electronic access to everyone's bank account, implying that the Feds will rob you blind. The 1,017-page bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee does call for electronic fund transfers—but from insurers to doctors and other providers. There is zero provision to include patients in any such system. Five other myths that won't die:

You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.
The myth that a "health choices commissioner" will decide what benefits you get seems to have originated in a July 19 post at blog.flecksoflife.com, whose homepage features an image of Obama looking like Heath Ledger's Joker. In fact, the House bill sets up a health-care exchange—essentially a list of private insurers and one government plan—where people who do not have health insurance through their employer or some other source (including small businesses) can shop for a plan, much as seniors shop for a drug plan under Medicare part D. The government will indeed require that participating plans not refuse people with preexisting conditions and offer at least minimum coverage, just as it does now with employer-provided insurance plans and part D. The requirements will be floors, not ceilings, however, in that the feds will have no say in how generous private insurance can be.

No chemo for older Medicare patients.
The threat that Medicare will give cancer patients over 70 only end-of-life counseling and not chemotherapy—as a nurse at a hospital told a roomful of chemo patients, including the uncle of a NEWSWEEK reporter—has zero basis in fact. It's just a vicious form of the rationing scare. The House bill does not use the word "ration." Nor does it call for cost-effectiveness research, much less implementation—the idea that "it isn't cost-effective to give a 90-year-old a hip replacement."

The general claim that care will be rationed under health-care reform is less a lie and more of a non-disprovable projection (as is Howard Dean's assertion that health-care reform will not lead to rationing, ever). What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions "are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies," says Dr. Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

A related myth is that health-care reform will be financed through $500 billion in Medicare cuts. This refers to proposed decreases in Medicare increases. That is, spending is on track to reach $803 billion in 2019 from today's $422 billion, and that would be dialed back. Even the $560 billion in reductions (which would be spread over 10 years and come from reducing payments to private Medicare advantage plans, reducing annual increases in payments to hospitals and other providers, and improving care so seniors are not readmitted to a hospital) is misleading: the House bill also gives Medicare $340 billion more over a decade. The money would pay docs more for office visits, eliminate copays and deductibles for preventive care, and help close the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit, explains Medicare expert Tricia Neuman of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance.
The House bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us premium paying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost). Will they be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance? The House bill says that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will not be allowed to receive subsidies.

The claim that taxpayers will wind up subsidizing health insurance for illegal immigrants has its origins in the defeat of an amendment, offered in July by Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, to require those enrolling in a public plan or seeking subsidies to purchase private insurance to have their citizenship verified. Flecksoflife.com claimed on July 19 that "HC [health care] will be provided 2 all non US citizens, illegal or otherwise." Rep. Steve King of Iowa spread the claim in a USA Today op-ed on Aug. 20, calling the explicit prohibition on such coverage "functionally meaningless" absent mandatory citizenship checks, and it's now gone viral. Can we say that none of the estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants will ever wangle insurance subsidies through identity fraud, pretending to be a citizen? You can't prove a negative, but experts say that Medicare—the closest thing to the proposals in the House bill—has no such problem.

Death panels will decide who lives.
On July 16 Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and darling of the right, said on Fred Thompson's radio show that "on page 425," "Congress would make it mandatory…that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition." Sarah Palin coined "death panels" in an Aug. 7 Facebook post.

This lie springs from a provision in the House bill to have Medicare cover optional counseling on end-of-life care for any senior who requests it. This means that any patient, terminally ill or not, can request a special consultation with his or her physician about ventilators, feeding tubes, and other measures. Thus the House bill expands Medicare coverage, but without forcing anyone into end-of-life counseling.

The death-panels claim nevertheless got a new lease on life when Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives under George W. Bush, claimed in an Aug. 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed that a 1997 workbook from the Department of Veterans Affairs pushes vets to "hurry up and die." In fact, the thrust of the 51-page book, which the VA pulled from circulation in 2007, is letting "loved ones" and "health care providers" "know your wishes." Readers are asked to decide what they believe, including that "life is sacred and has meaning, no matter what its quality," and that "my life should be prolonged as long as it can...using any means possible." But the workbook also asks if readers "believe there are some situations in which I would not want treatments to keep me alive." Opponents of health-care reform have selectively cited this passage as evidence the government wants to kill the old and the sick.

The government will set doctors' wages.
This, too, seems to have originated on the Flecksoflife blog on July 19. But while page 127 of the House bill says that physicians who choose to accept patients in the public insurance plan would receive 5 percent more than Medicare pays for a given service, doctors can refuse to accept such patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of, say, Aetna. "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the government; that's completely false," says Amitabh Chandra, professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

To be sure, there are also honest and principled objections to health-care reform. Some oppose a requirement that everyone have health insurance as an erosion of individual liberty. That's a debatable position, but an honest one. And many are simply scared out of their wits about what health-care reform will mean for them. But when fear and loathing hijack the brain, anything becomes believable—even that health-care reform is unconstitutional. To disprove that, check the commerce clause: Article I, Section 8.

With Katie Connolly, Claudia Kalb, and Ian Yarett

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254

[Ruined]

dmaul, are you sure you mean Newsweek and not regurgitated White House propaganda article?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

[Msut77]

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p34/Msut77/0906natlessonsweb304091.jpg

[Ruined]

Wait a second, you mean more advanced technology costs more money??? Who'da thunk it?!!!

[dmaul1114]

dmaul, are you sure you mean Newsweek and not regurgitated White House propaganda article?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

Facts are facts. So of course there's overlap.

But buy into the right wing bullshit lies if you want.

[thrustbucket]

If there are provisions in the proposed plan to basically make it impossible to change after it has passed (as I have heard), then that's reason enough not to pass it, imo.

[mykevermin]

to change what? insurance provider/plan?

we're not still buying into that page 16 'grandfathering' myth, are we?

[thrustbucket]

No.

I've had several people tell me that there is wording in the bill that essentially tries to 'lock' the bill from every being modified, or at least make it extremely difficult to modify.

I don't necessarily believe it, because I haven't had the time (or care) to find out for myself. But the fact that so many people have said it have made me raise an eyebrow, for now.

[mykevermin]

"several people" probably don't understand how federal gov't works, in my estimation. i wouldn't buy what they're saying.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Even Constitutional amendments can be repealed.

[thrustbucket]

As in many cases, I should probably do my research before opening my mouth. :)

But I don't want to work. And I want to be with the cool kids so bad.

[dmaul1114]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26953.html

Full text of Obama's speech for those interested. Just gave it a read as I had a prior engagement that kept me for watching last night.

Solid speech.

Are people really that opposed to a public option IF it's done in the format he outlined?

-Not funded with tax payer money, must work totally off income from premiums
-Prices lower by being ran as a non-profit, reducing waste, not having huge salaries for executives etc.
-Likely to only be taken advantage of by 5% of Americans
-Requirements in the bill for other spending cuts if the plan doesn't pay for itself as intended

There doesn't seem like much to be worried about there, or anything worth screaming "socialism!" over.

Plus all the other good parts of the plan putting more regulations on all insurance in terms on not denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, not dropping people (or watering down coverage) of people who get sick, not allowing caps on how much can be paid out in a year or life time etc.

Any how, for or against the plan I encourage everyone to write their congressman and senators rather than just posting about it online.

[Snake2715]

Two issues there.

Frst:
Likely to only be taken advantage of by 5% of Americans


incorrect.. if small business know they can cancel and get their employees to get on this system, they will.. look at all the abuse with food stamps, ebt, etc That wil happen and it will be more than 5%.

Second:

Requirements in the bill for other spending cuts if the plan doesn't pay for itself as intended

This needs to be elaborated a bit.. cuts on what? The medical services? Some other place? Makes no sense. You cut the medical services you are not staying competitive. The rates will increase exponentially after the first couple years, once they have data to support the necessary increases. It happens all the time with new carriers, "buying up business" so to say. Low the first couple years, then you need to adjust. This happens even on the HMO not for profit carriers, it will happen here.



No prex will most likely pass. ... the downside is higher initial premiums... they have to cover their losses somehow. look to Floridas max group rate up of 15% idea and how well that went over... it increased the base rates.

No lifetime max is crazy. First off thats there on all policies, or most. Its something along the lines of 3-7million per insured person (not pooled for the family). Its pretty hard to reach that. I have seen a 1,000,000 claim once. That was with a guy that was taking shots in the range of $60,000 a pop... he passed, it was slightly over 1,100,000 before network discounts for the total bill. You must remember there are discounts for having the insurance a $50,000 charge will most likely get dropped to 25-35,000 after discounts.

He talked about mandates on everyone taking coverage, then turned around and said there would be x outs for various classes, and small businesses.... well then its not everyone is it now... you want to make the poor buy it (subsidized), but allow small business an exemption?

[dmaul1114]

He talked about mandates on everyone taking coverage, then turned around and said there would be x outs for various classes, and small businesses.... well then its not everyone is it now... you want to make the poor buy it (subsidized), but allow small business an exemption?

My reading of that part was that there would be hardship waivers for BOTH individuals and small businesses who truly couldn't afford coverage even with subsidies. But it wasn't very clear.

[fullmetalfan720]

See 3:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uMh7MwLOpc

[Snake2715]

the thing is no one saves, and no one is going to buy it if they have more money from less taxes...

They will wait till their sick and go to the ER. Its like this guy is saying we shouldnt have ot carry auto insurance. BS. People will avoid it, hit someone and then drag it out in court, while the victim suffers.

It needs to be mandated. Just like children have to go to school and you need insurance on your car. You need it on your health. How many healthy people have had heart attacks.

[fullmetalfan720]

the thing is no one saves, and no one is going to buy it if they have more money from less taxes...

They will wait till their sick and go to the ER. Its like this guy is saying we shouldnt have ot carry auto insurance. BS. People will avoid it, hit someone and then drag it out in court, while the victim suffers.

It needs to be mandated. Just like children have to go to school and you need insurance on your car. You need it on your health. How many healthy people have had heart attacks.
I was actually trying to point out two things.
1. How cheap emergency insurance was in 1960. ($15 a year!)
2.Plus at 5:35
"Nobody cares what the procedures cost, because nobody is paying for it. And the doctors know this, the hospitals know this, there's no control on costs. People pay whatever it is."

[Snake2715]

Very true, they have no idea what the care costs, and most have no idea how big of a portion their employer pays. Ask someone about cobra, and you will most likely hear that its expensive. Well no shit, its the full cost (+2% admin) of the health insurance. Just cause you have been paying a small portion doesnt mean it got expensive all of a sudden, it means you are not getting any help now.

[thrustbucket]

Some thoughts after watching the presidents sales pitch:

- Isn't it extremely disingenuous to hammer away at how there are so many states with healthcare monopolies with few insurance companies, when trying to make a case for government oversight - when the entire reason that is the case is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION that allowed it to happen?

- I have yet to read/hear/see the Obama/Democratic party argument for why allowing cross-state insurance is a bad idea and they won't support it. What's their argument? Why not allow all insurance companies to compete against each other in the country?

-It felt very uncomfortable to watch him, several times, throw a bone to Republicans and talk as if he really wanted to extend a hand of compromise, and then seconds later toss age-old t-bone steaks to the rabid democratic horde, sending them into a frenzy.

[mykevermin]

1) elaborate

2) see your point #1. if monopolies exist, how does interstate commerce resolve that issue? (never mind that interstate commerce doesn't even begin to solve those who do not have coverage, those who can not afford coverage, those whose employers don't provide coverage, or how much coverage is offered - or really anything, actually).

3) wha?

[fullmetalfan720]

1) elaborate

2) see your point #1. if monopolies exist, how does interstate commerce resolve that issue? (never mind that interstate commerce doesn't even begin to solve those who do not have coverage, those who can not afford coverage, those whose employers don't provide coverage, or how much coverage is offered - or really anything, actually).

3) wha?
None of this even matters right now. We don't need health care reform. It won't help anything. It's like putting a defective band-aid on a bullet wound. We need a complete reform of this country. We need a productive capacity. On this health care issue, we need to look at the big picture. People not being able to afford health insurance is a symptom of a larger problem. People aren't making enough to get by anymore. The good high paying jobs are drying up. All that is left is service jobs. We are a nation where 2/3s of us are overweight. We don't eat healthy anymore, which is causing many of our health problems. Our money is quickly becoming worthless, and most of it is IMAGINARY! Through the system of fractional reserve banking, and the boom and bust cycle, trillions are created out of thin air! We've been on top of the world for too long, and now the bottom is falling out. We need a productive capacity again. How is it that in the '60s health insurance cost $15 a year, and now it is in the hundreds of dollars a MONTH? We've lost our way. Our coins (≥10cents)used to be made out of silver, and our pennies out of copper. Now they are made out of cupronickel, and zinc respectively. Our money has lost it's value, our labor force is getting paid less and less, and a large amount of our jobs are shipping overseas. We've got people in Detroit who can't afford food, so they have to grow it in their yards. Six million people (or more) will go into foreclosure this year. It isn't just the availability of health care that is falling apart, it's the entire country.

[Msut77]

My reading of that part was that there would be hardship waivers for BOTH individuals and small businesses who truly couldn't afford coverage even with subsidies. But it wasn't very clear.

I truly don't understand why people think it matters that employers wouldn't "provide" their associates with health care. There isn't any reason for why an employer should be responsible for your health care any more than they should buy your groceries.

Our health care system is fubar and quite frankly drags down other parts of the economy with it, a strong public option is a step in the right direction.