Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='elprincipe']Yeah I know, I just posted it because I found the numbers interesting. Maybe we have more angioplasties because we have more heart problems, although the mortality rate is interesting. I was most struck by the cancer survival rates. And of course, these are cherry-picked stats from a known right-wing source, so I'm sure that they took the numbers most compatible with their viewpoint. Again, I just found some of the numbers interesting and a good talking point maybe. Always take stuff like this with a grain of salt - someone put something like this together because they want you to see it and think one way, so realize this and keep and open mind as to other information.[/QUOTE]

I guess the OECD stats are good though, you can get the spreadsheet here:
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

Though I imagine that comparing stats wouldn't be a direct thing anyway. The rates in Canada and the UK, even though higher than the US, have still steadily declined over the same period as the US, and even if we switched to a single-payer system there would still be the same number of hospitals and what-not, which really give the care, not the insurance companies.

It seems like one of the goals of the insurance companies is to link themselves to the care. Like they're the ones who are saving lives. They pay for it, sure, if you pay them, but the doctors are really the ones doing all the work, and as long as they're paid it doesn't matter who's paying them.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That would be the pound of cure.

See also the diabetes stats, lopping your foot off is no problem paying for preventative care is an uphill battle.[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't preventative care be handled at the individual level? Not eating tons of sugar, getting regular exercise, etc.

I haven't read through all 1400+ posts, but I think a topic worth discussing is the amount of crap put into our food and sources of food that is causing disease. It's not something I've heard in the media when discussing the healthcare issue; but if we weren't constantly eating garbage disguised as food it's very likely that we wouldn't have such severe medical issues in America.

I'm not for government run healthcare; I really don't feel that it's fair for me to pay for the consequences of some idiot eating fast food or _______ every day. I'm not sure that a potential government option or single payer system would encourage people to take care of their bodies any worse than they are now, as most people simply don't care or think about health when eating, but I'm not quite sure if it'd make that situation any better. I just don't see anything changing when it comes to the way most Americans eat/take care of themselves.

I'm kind of blabbering at this point, but I don't see anything getting fixed unless we attack the root problem of our healthcare here in America, instead of worrying about symptoms. On top of that, I really doubt the politicians who are bought and paid for in part by the food and medical lobby are about to give up that ghost any time soon.
 
Part of preventive care can involve monitoring body fat %, cholesterol, blood pressure etc. in annual physicals, giving doctors opportunities to press the importance of eating right and exercising.

Hard to get people to follow that, but I have had friends and family finally make some changes to be healthier after getting a check up and having cholestorol and other issues.

As I've said earlier, one way I'd support to encourage it is have discounts you can earn/keep on your insurance premiums for having your body fat, cholesterol, blood pressure etc. in health ranges for your age in the physical. The same idea as having safe driver discounts on auto insurance to encourage people to drive slower and be more careful.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Shouldn't preventative care be handled at the individual level? Not eating tons of sugar, getting regular exercise, etc.[/quote]

All preventative care? No.

Some of it is pretty basic but you would be surprised at how much one would learn with a single consultation with a nutritionist etc. which is something insurance companies do not like to pay for.

It seems you like might be looking more towards the public health side of things.

I haven't read through all 1400+ posts, but I think a topic worth discussing is the amount of crap put into our food and sources of food that is causing disease. It's not something I've heard in the media when discussing the healthcare issue; but if we weren't constantly eating garbage disguised as food it's very likely that we wouldn't have such severe medical issues in America.
Click to expand...

It is about the fifth or so time someone has brought it up.

No one is going to defend eating McCrap for your entire life, however.

One of the fittest people I know got into a jet ski accident and his shitty insurance only covered a pittance.

I'm not for government run healthcare;
Click to expand...

That is not an argument against health care reform.

I really don't feel that it's fair for me to pay for the consequences of some idiot eating fast food or _______ every day.
Click to expand...

Thank you Ashton Kutcher.

I'm not sure that a potential government option or single payer system would encourage people to take care of their bodies any worse than they are now, as most people simply don't care or think about health when eating, but I'm not quite sure if it'd make that situation any better. I just don't see anything changing when it comes to the way most Americans eat/take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

Other countries have better health care outcomes than we do, in a very large part due to their universal health care programs.

I'm kind of blabbering at this point, but I don't see anything getting fixed unless we attack the root problem of our healthcare here in America, instead of worrying about symptoms. On top of that, I really doubt the politicians who are bought and paid for in part by the food and medical lobby are about to give up that ghost any time soon.
Click to expand...

We shall see, although people who are against reform even though they have admittedly little clue about how things work aren't helping.
 
[quote name='Msut77']One of the fittest people I know got into a jet ski accident and his shitty insurance only covered a pittance.[/QUOTE]

If he hadn't been doing something dangerous he wouldn't have needed to use his health insurance. It's just like when you sky dive, if you get hurt, tough shit. Don't do stupid stuff and then be surprised when not everything gets paid for if you get hurt.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']If he hadn't been doing something dangerous he wouldn't have needed to use his health insurance. It's just like when you sky dive, if you get hurt, tough shit. Don't do stupid stuff and then be surprised when not everything gets paid for if you get hurt.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's a reasonable response. The more relevant question is whether the policy covered jet ski accidents, which clearly it didn't since the claim was denied (unless there is a lawsuit over this or it's in dispute or something). Perhaps the person who had the accident had no idea that this was the case because the insurance company put in some shady, hard to understand legalisms in the agreement. There are so many unknowns here it's hard to say if the person who had the accident has a legitimate beef with the insurance company.
 
First and foremost, you'll forgive me if I don't care to read an op-ed who describes Islam in this way:

"These are not church bells, folks. This is the sound, however muted, of the world’s most aggressive religion rearing up and lyrically cooing its desire to master the world under Allah. Islam means, literally, Submission to Allah."

Now, that's not relevant, but it does provide a context to figure out how this guy writes his claims.

What the Senate Finance Committee did was approve of the budget for the bill. That's the jurisdiction they had: to say "oh, sure, we can pay for this." That's the extent, really, of their powers. Yes we can fund this or no we can't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']First and foremost, you'll forgive me if I don't care to read an op-ed who describes Islam in this way:

"These are not church bells, folks. This is the sound, however muted, of the world’s most aggressive religion rearing up and lyrically cooing its desire to master the world under Allah. Islam means, literally, Submission to Allah."

Now, that's not relevant, but it does provide a context to figure out how this guy writes his claims.

What the Senate Finance Committee did was approve of the budget for the bill. That's the jurisdiction they had: to say "oh, sure, we can pay for this." That's the extent, really, of their powers. Yes we can fund this or no we can't.[/QUOTE]

Obviously it's not relevant, but you added that line anyway. So lets add another non-relavent line. You believe so much in the same politicians who already admit to not reading bills:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao

So your voice is irrelevant to a conversation about reading bills to begin with.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']If he hadn't been doing something dangerous he wouldn't have needed to use his health insurance. It's just like when you sky dive, if you get hurt, tough shit. Don't do stupid stuff and then be surprised when not everything gets paid for if you get hurt.[/QUOTE]

A troll is as a troll does I suppose.

My non-video game hobby happens to be bicycling, what you said applies to basically every activity more strenuous than whacking off.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What the Senate Finance Committee did was approve of the budget for the bill. That's the jurisdiction they had: to say "oh, sure, we can pay for this." That's the extent, really, of their powers. Yes we can fund this or no we can't.[/QUOTE]

That's like me approving my wife to go out and buy a car without any idea of how much she plans to spend on it (I do the budgeting in the household...). How can they say "We can afford this" without any idea what is in the bill that doesn't exist yet?
 
Yeah, there is a bill, with a budget attached. That committee just can't vote on the bill. They say they can pay for it, as myke said, and now the bill can go forward and be debated on the floor etc. At least that's my understanding from a couple articles I read earlier today.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because a bill does exist.

You just choose to believe an op-ed on Town Hall.[/QUOTE]

So, you're saying there is a finalized bill?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you can ignore all of the partisan stabs in this column, can anyone explain to me how they voted on a bill that doesn't even exist yet?[/quote]
[quote name='UncleBob']So, you're saying there is a finalized bill?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']we need time for the smart folk to read the bill and tell us what's in it. Then, we need time for the other smart folk to read the bill, read what the first smart folk said and either agree with it or debunk it. For this reason, I very much support putting the initial drafts up for distribution. If the bill is good enough for the House or Senate to be spending time on debating, then it should be good enough for the American people to get to spend some time analyzing/debating it.[/QUOTE]
wat
 
I'm not sure what you're confused about there.

I'm not opposed to distribution of initial drafts of bills.
I'm opposed to voting for initial drafts of bills.
 
Then I guess I'm confused about what you want from an initial draft of important legislation. This thing is just getting out of committee, which is why the insurance industry has waiting till now to really let the PR dogs of war loose.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. Are you saying we shouldn't use committees to draft legislation? They have to vote on em before they hit the floor. That's just the way they do it.
 
Maybe I'm confused... this committee says "We can afford to do this bill." - except that there are absolutely no plans to vote on or enact this legislation as is.

So what's the point of someone saying "Yeah, we can afford this" when "this" isn't ever going to be in the realm of what we're looking to buy into?
 
Because that's the process. This is another illustration of what's broken in our "system". It has to pass the finance committee to go any further, but everyone knows that there will be huge compromises between both houses before it ever ends.

In a nutshell, it's a joke. The entire thing is a joke.

This whole thing keeps reminding me of a bumper sticker I once saw:

"Government Policy: If it ain't broke, fix it till it is."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Maybe I'm confused... this committee says "We can afford to do this bill." - except that there are absolutely no plans to vote on or enact this legislation as is.

So what's the point of someone saying "Yeah, we can afford this" when "this" isn't ever going to be in the realm of what we're looking to buy into?[/QUOTE]

Just the way it works. They have to approve they could pay for what's in the current bill, and then it goes before the house and senate etc.

I assume either they can't make changes that increase cost . Or if they can, it has to be approved by this committee again. But I'd be interested in the specifics as well.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Because that's the process. This is another illustration of what's broken in our "system". It has to pass the finance committee to go any further, but everyone knows that there will be huge compromises between both houses before it ever ends.

In a nutshell, it's a joke. The entire thing is a joke.[/QUOTE]

I knew unhinged faux-libertarian conservatism often produces anti-patriotism, anti-nationalism, and ultimately hate for anything about one's country but total reformation - but I'd never really seen it first hand until thrustbucket's posts.
 
The way that I understand it is, yesterday the Senate Finance Committee voted to move their bill ("The Baucus Bill") out of conference. This bill lacks a public option, and well, is nothing more than a 829 billion dollar bailout of the insurance companies.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']The way that I understand it is, yesterday the Senate Finance Committee voted to move their bill ("The Baucus Bill") out of conference. This bill lacks a public option, and well, is nothing more than a 829 billion dollar bailout of the insurance companies.[/QUOTE]

They voted to advance the Senate Finance Committee bill to the floor. The Democrats will now take the bill passed by the HELP Committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and combine it with the Finance bill. Basically, from what Reid said today, there will be four people deciding what's in the final bill: Baucus, Reid, Dodd (who was in charge of the HELP bill while filling in for Kennedy, even though the HELP Committee is now chaired by Harkin), and a White House representative (today Rahm Emanuel was there to begin negotiations). So bottom line is that you have two bills, one with the public option and one without, and four people are going to sit behind closed doors and decide what goes in the bill that goes to the floor and what doesn't.

If that isn't convoluted and secretive enough, on the floor probably hundreds of amendments will be offered, so the bill could be changed significantly further. When they finally get through the amendment process, the Democrats will need 60 votes to cut off debate and go to a vote.

Then, even if they go to a vote and pass the bill, it will depend on what the House does. If the House passes a bill also, the Senate and House will appoint negotiators to sit in a House-Senate conference committee to decide what parts of each bill are kept and what is thrown out.

At that point, when the conference committee agrees on a final bill, it goes back to both houses to be voted up or down without amendment.

If it passes both houses in this stage it goes to Obama for his signature or veto.

You're welcome for the civics lesson :)
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']This bill lacks a public option, and well, is nothing more than a 829 billion dollar bailout of the insurance companies.[/QUOTE]

Every time you post something like that, I have a certain feeling about the health care reform.

Got_A_Bad_feeling.jpg
 
[quote name='elprincipe']They voted to advance the Senate Finance Committee bill to the floor. The Democrats will now take the bill passed by the HELP Committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and combine it with the Finance bill. Basically, from what Reid said today, there will be four people deciding what's in the final bill: Baucus, Reid, Dodd (who was in charge of the HELP bill while filling in for Kennedy, even though the HELP Committee is now chaired by Harkin), and a White House representative (today Rahm Emanuel was there to begin negotiations). So bottom line is that you have two bills, one with the public option and one without, and four people are going to sit behind closed doors and decide what goes in the bill that goes to the floor and what doesn't.

If that isn't convoluted and secretive enough, on the floor probably hundreds of amendments will be offered, so the bill could be changed significantly further. When they finally get through the amendment process, the Democrats will need 60 votes to cut off debate and go to a vote.

Then, even if they go to a vote and pass the bill, it will depend on what the House does. If the House passes a bill also, the Senate and House will appoint negotiators to sit in a House-Senate conference committee to decide what parts of each bill are kept and what is thrown out.

At that point, when the conference committee agrees on a final bill, it goes back to both houses to be voted up or down without amendment.

If it passes both houses in this stage it goes to Obama for his signature or veto.

You're welcome for the civics lesson :)[/QUOTE]

So, basically, the entire idea of any kind of "budget" committee passing this bill is worthless?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, basically, the entire idea of any kind of "budget" committee passing this bill is worthless?[/QUOTE]

At this point any kind of 'budget commitee' for the government is worthless anyway, they'll spend our money regardless.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, basically, the entire idea of any kind of "budget" committee passing this bill is worthless?[/QUOTE]

We are talking about the Finance Committee, not the Budget Committee. The Budget Committees deal with the federal budget as a whole and set out a preliminary plan (with input from the president via the budget he proposes), but this is done usually in February/March/April.

For a bill like this, they are going to do what they want. If they want to add to the deficit, they will. Who knows how it will end up at this point. Obama declared he wouldn't support a bill that would add "one dime" to our unbelievably huge deficit, but all the options so far proposed either do that (by engaging in fantasy accounting such as believing that Congress will cut $500 billion from Medicare, as the Baucus bill does) or dramatically raise taxes/"fees" (especially the House Ways and Means Committee bill). The House has PAYGO rules ("pay as you go") where you are supposed to either cut something else or raise government revenue to cover new costs incurred. But of course, that can be waived (and often is) if enough reps are willing. The Senate has no such rules.
 
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...-comprehensive-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpa

"Because our health care system," he continued, according to a transcript posted by Latina Lista, "while it remains the best in the country and while it provides largely the services that people need and the quality of those services are very, very good, there are costs associated with this system that needs to be address more directly."
Click to expand...

America has the number one health care system in America.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, for those saying there was "no bill" here's the whole 1,500 page bill that came out of the Finance Committee.

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf[/QUOTE]

Can anyone understand this shit? Even our big bad Master and PhD's? Really?

It's pretty clear they purposely write this stuff in a way so that a lot of it is wild card and a lot of it opens the door to easily implement a lot of other things.

Oh well. Everyone knows that particular bill is a "starting point" and it will be heavily modified into something totally different by the time this is all over.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Can anyone understand this shit? Even our big bad Master and PhD's? Really?

It's pretty clear they purposely write this stuff in a way so that a lot of it is wild card and a lot of it opens the door to easily implement a lot of other things.[/QUOTE]

Quit being a pussy. It's only 1500 pages.

...

I saw an interesting commercial on CNN while on break. Some group wants those making over $250,000 to pay their fair share instead of the middle class paying a 40% tax rate.

Are the richest 1% of us clogging our ER rooms and hoarding all of the hospitals, doctors, nurses and medicines?

Is universal health care really going to cost 40% of wages?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Quit being a pussy. It's only 1500 pages.

[/QUOTE]

Uhuh. Anyone want to guess how many of our elected officials will read the entire thing? Anyone?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Uhuh. Anyone want to guess how many of our elected officials will read the entire thing? Anyone?[/QUOTE]

I'm more interested in how many of them will read and understand the entire thing...
 
Crazy busy this week, but doesn't it stand to reason that a longer document contains greater specifications and therefore fewer opportunities for a "wild card"?

If we really wanted a wild card bill, it would be quite short, no?

ARTICLE I:

Eh, whatever.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Crazy busy this week, but doesn't it stand to reason that a longer document contains greater specifications and therefore fewer opportunities for a "wild card"?

If we really wanted a wild card bill, it would be quite short, no?

ARTICLE I:

Eh, whatever.[/QUOTE]

It is easier to bury "A Tale of Two Cities" in the middle of a 1500 page document than a one page document.

No great percentage of people are going to read this due to its length and that is why legislation is made longer.
 
Honestly, with something like this I'd think you'd want it as long and specific as possible. You'd also want your representatives to read it, but I think I'd rather it be long and specific than short and vague just so somebody can say they read it.

Plus, c'mon, it's 1500 pages, but it's like 1500 pages of large print reader's digest, we're not talking War and Peace here.
 
TPM has a story saying that the House Dems are sitting on a plan with a public option that will be cheaper than the Senate plan without one. I guess the idea is that they wait for the CBO to drop the $$ figure on the Senate bill then ride in like saviors with the cheaper public option plan.

For those with strong feelings about omitting a public option, would that in any way sway your opinion? Or is it more the RAWR SOCIALISM thing ya'll is after? I'm curious how much is fiscal vs. ideological.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...cally-responsible-health-care-bill.php?ref=mp
 
I've said before, I'm not against a government option, so long as it's ran equally and fairly against the private options. Meaning it shouldn't be funded at the taxpayer's teat and should comply with all rules and laws that private insurers have to deal with.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I've said before, I'm not against a government option, so long as it's ran equally and fairly against the private options. Meaning it shouldn't be funded at the taxpayer's teat and should comply with all rules and laws that private insurers have to deal with.[/QUOTE]


Exactly..

And recently we are hearing talks f eliminating the cross state regulations so that competition can open up in all states.. one federal guideline. That really has to happen as i have been saying for this to work, otherwise its just not going to work in some states, and the price will vary for each states required coverage limits, that you will notice a new influx of people moving to those states with the cheapest options from the government..
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I've said before, I'm not against a government option, so long as it's ran equally and fairly against the private options. Meaning it shouldn't be funded at the taxpayer's teat and should comply with all rules and laws that private insurers have to deal with.[/QUOTE]

You know private insurance would lose against public insurance.

1. No need to have profits in public insurance.

2. The government can rewrite rules to favor its own insurance.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You know private insurance would lose against public insurance.

1. No need to have profits in public insurance.

2. The government can rewrite rules to favor its own insurance.[/QUOTE]

Likely.

As with Myke, however, I'm not too concerned about the profits of private insurance. However, so long as the government option is required to fund itself (including payouts, administrative costs, office space, etc.) and not be allowed to make the general tax payer population pay for it, I'm fine with it.

As for the second one, ideally, any rules they rewrite should work in everyone's favor. I would be wholly against something like "All health insurers must do X - the Government Option is exempt from this." This is the fairly competing part.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As with Myke, however, I'm not too concerned about the profits of private insurance. However, so long as the government option is required to fund itself (including payouts, administrative costs, office space, etc.) and not be allowed to make the general tax payer population pay for it, I'm fine with it.[/QUOTE]

How would the public option pay for itself without taxing the general population?

If the public option doesn't tax the general population, the only people taking the public option are the rejects the private options won't cover. The pool will be all high cost participants who can't pay their own way already. So, the public option will fail without an infusion by taxing the general population.

For example, old people aren't the only ones paying for Medicare or Social Security.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How would the public option pay for itself without taxing the general population?
[/QUOTE]

I think the idea is that premiums on people who choose to take the public option must be set at a level that allows the system to break even.

It could still be cheaper for members than private insurance as it's not being ran to maximize profits, pay executives multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses etc., finding ways to cut down wasteful spending/unneeded care etc. Its not like medicare/medicaid where it's for people who generally aren't working, or are making very little and paying little taxes.

Whether it can be pulled off is another question, but that's the idea of how to do it with out raising taxes across the board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think the idea is that premiums on people who choose to take the public option must be set at a level that allows the system to break even.

It could still be cheaper for members than private insurance as it's not being ran to maximize profits, pay executives multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses etc., finding ways to cut down wasteful spending/unneeded care etc. Its not like medicare/medicaid where it's for people who generally aren't working, or are making very little and paying little taxes.

Whether it can be pulled off is another question, but that's the idea of how to do it with out raising taxes across the board.[/QUOTE]

What he said.

The government claims that the government option is to "compete" with private insurers. If that's the case, then it needs to compete fairly. Unless we're going to let private insurers start taxing citizens, then the competing government option should not be allowed to either.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think the idea is that premiums on people who choose to take the public option must be set at a level that allows the system to break even.

It could still be cheaper for members than private insurance as it's not being ran to maximize profits, pay executives multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses etc., finding ways to cut down wasteful spending/unneeded care etc. Its not like medicare/medicaid where it's for people who generally aren't working, or are making very little and paying little taxes.

Whether it can be pulled off is another question, but that's the idea of how to do it with out raising taxes across the board.[/QUOTE]

There are three variables: X, Y and Z.

X is the maximum amount a person can pay for insurance.

Z is the amount a person would be charged for private insurance.

Y is the amount a person would be charged for public insurance.

X is greater than Z. So, a person can't afford private insurance.

Y is less than Z. Y is some value between 0.5Z to 0.8Z.

If the public option will be successful without taxes, Y must be equal to or less than X.

If Y is greater than X, it will have to subsidized through taxes against the general population.

Considering the average value of Z for users who can't afford private insurance is between 2X and 10X, the average value of Y for them would be between 1X (hurray!) and 8X (boo!).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What he said.

The government claims that the government option is to "compete" with private insurers. If that's the case, then it needs to compete fairly. Unless we're going to let private insurers start taxing citizens, then the competing government option should not be allowed to either.[/QUOTE]

If we really wanted to be "unfair" to insurance companies we would enact single payer.

It looks to me as if your priorities are a wee bit messed up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top