^
And...

-- Eliminate all laws that prohibit Doctors from advertising their prices. Let some competition in.

-- Eliminate laws that forbid doctors from giving discounts for cash purchases.

-- Allow Limited Liability Contracts between doctors and patients. Consensual caps on malpractice suits will lower insurance costs.


Everytime I hear a democrat politician dismiss a private sector solution, it just reminds me that they are less interested in reforming healthcare and more interested in growing gov't control over our lives.

12/17/2009 10:32:08 PM

Quote :

"The profit margin for health care companies hovers somewhere between 1 and 4% on average. This certainly isn't mind-blowing. "

Do you mean insurance companies? I wouldn't expect a middle man to really have a high margin, more a parasitic cost. Have a look at the drug makers and health care facilities, 15-20%. I'm sure there are several other sub industries related to health care that do better than the insurance companies themselves.

As far as reducing costs, the elephant in the room always seems to be that no one wants to tell Americans that you can either have 2 of cheap, now, or the latest technology, but not all three. On top of that, we have to move back towards a time where we don't test for everything, and check for everything, and just accept that we each aren't going to be dealt the best hand.

12/17/2009 10:35:12 PM

^^ Might as well add to that discourage laws that prevent doctors from selling their services on a subscription basis (see NY). Unfortunately a lot of those are state level laws as well, but elimination of any similar laws on the national level would make it easier to change it at the state level.

12/17/2009 10:41:31 PM

Quote :

"And we are practically bankrupt."

moron

Except that we're not--you don't know what the fuck you're taking about. And Bill Clinton said it would happen by the end of the year--in 1993, dumbass!

Quote :

"But all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail. . .let me say this again, I feel so strongly about this. . .all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail unless we also take. . this year--not next year, not five years from now but this year. . .bold steps to reform our health-care system."

Quote :

"We must do it [health-care reform] this year."

--Bill Clinton, 1993 State of the Union Address

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5y-XXJPUjU



I seem to recall some of you referring to the prosperity during the Clinton years. GASP! How was it possible without health-care reform?

12/18/2009 4:38:29 AM

Quote :

"because we arent socialist. "

We've been socialist in many ways for nearly a century.

And "reigning in costs" has little to do with telling insurance companies they have to charge a certain price.

As I understand it, the current bill requires everyone to buy insurance, but has no public option and no medicare, compromises made to appease the Republicans, but that have resulted in what amounts to welfare for the insurance company.

12/18/2009 11:05:51 AM

Quote :

"As I understand it, the current bill requires everyone to buy insurance, but has no public option and no medicare, compromises made to appease the Republicans, but that have resulted in what amounts to welfare for the insurance company."

A better compromise would be not forcing private citizens to spend their own money on unnecessary services and products from a government limited and selected list of providers. No one here would think it ok for the government to mandate that to protect the lives and health of Americans that every americN had to buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle or else they would be taxed extra; yet here we are doing the same damn thing, the only difference is we're bailing out BCBS and Cigna.

12/18/2009 11:47:11 AM

the current bill requires you to buy insurance, but only penalizes you (I think) $750/year if you dont (which is a lot cheaper than actually buying insurance) and still allows you to get insured at a later date, regardless of what happens.

its pretty easy to see what will happen. some are going to choose to pay the $750/year penalty instead of the $150/month or whatever a plan costs them. then they are going to get sick, go get the insurance they shouldve had the whole time and the insurer is going to be forced to cover them. the insurer is going to be forced to raise everyone's rates to cover these instances.

the pre-existing conditions thing is the fly in the ointment.

12/18/2009 2:42:26 PM

Well, Senator Nelson announced he'd support the bill.

12/19/2009 11:22:15 AM

America is officially fucked.

12/19/2009 11:53:24 AM

Quote :

"the insurer is going to be forced to raise everyone's rates to cover these instances. "

We already do pay for those people. They don't have insurance as it is now. So I'd say getting $750 yr from them is better than getting $0 a year from them.

12/19/2009 11:55:50 AM

Don't worry, dude. We're going to "tackle the deficit" next year and everything will be "fine."

12/19/2009 11:59:39 AM

Quote :

"Well, Senator Nelson announced he'd support the bill."

Don't you mean he was bought off like every other liberal that has spoken out against this bill. Dems have fucked this country over and the middle class and upper class will have to foot the bill, but Congress and the President's health care package will remain the same while virtually everybody else will be forced to pay more out of pocket for less care.

12/19/2009 12:12:03 PM

THE SKY IS FALLING


Really, though. I wish the archives went back to 2003 so I could quote some of your opinions on Medicare Part D (which wasn't even paid for)

12/19/2009 12:21:53 PM

^^ You'd have more credibility if you said Congress. If this bill fails (and it still could) the GOP will pick it up, make it their own, and run on a bastardized version in 2010.

12/19/2009 1:26:49 PM

Quote :

" We already do pay for those people. They don't have insurance as it is now. So I'd say getting $750 yr from them is better than getting $0 a year from them."

who in their right mind is going to spend $200/month on health insurance when they can just pay the $750 penalty and still get coverage? it makes no sense!!

if this is the policy you want to enact, why not make the penalty a lot more painful, so the people will actually buy the insurance, spread the risk and (theoretically) lower rates? why give that out?

further, where does that $750 go? to the insurers or to the feds?

12/19/2009 1:39:24 PM

Quote :

"who in their right mind is going to spend $200/month on health insurance when they can just pay the $750 penalty and still get coverage?"

I don't think skipping the check on ER visits really counts as "coverage".

12/19/2009 2:48:51 PM

Quote :

"We already do pay for those people. They don't have insurance as it is now. So I'd say getting $750 yr from them is better than getting $0 a year from them. "

The people that don't have insurance now, likely won't be paying that $750 anyway between the fact that they either get all their taxes back at the end of the year (see ~30% of america with 0 or negative federal tax liability) and the subsidies built into this program. The $750 won't be coming from anyone who can't afford insurance now, it will be coming from all the people who now buy extremely high deductable insurance who decide that since coverage is mandatory, they're better off not buying insurance till they need in since either way they're in the hole. To compensate for that, the rest of us will be paying even more.

Nothing in this process will do anything to lower health care or health insurance costs.

12/19/2009 3:14:23 PM

^ Nothing you just posted implies we pay more. The status quo is they go to emergency rooms for colds as it is, we pay for it. The pre-existing conditions clause very well could make everyone else have to pay more, but penalizing people that don't pay for insurance isn't one of those ways.

I haven't dug deeply into the economics outside of what the CBO says, but the fact the insurers are so eager to support this must mean it isn't going to hurt their bottom line via that mechanism, thus it won't hurt our bottom line via higher premiums. Via higher taxes, maybe.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 3:18:56 PM

In principle, costs will decrease:

-Hospitals currently have to increase their patient fees by 15% or more to cover losses due to uninsured patients. Reducing the number of uninsured patients should allow hospitals to lower their fees.
-Insurance companies will pay out less money for smaller hospital bills and get an increase in subscribers.
-More insurance-holders means more people choosing preventative care, which means more expensive crises averted. Thus, less expensive payouts from insurers. Of course, having to cover those with pre-existing conditions will mean higher costs, but eventually we would all end up paying for it anyways in the form of higher hospital fees for everyone.

It's one big economic experiment, but not terribly radical relative to economic legislation of prior decades.

12/19/2009 3:31:48 PM

Quote :

" I don't think skipping the check on ER visits really counts as "coverage"."

what are you talking about?

12/19/2009 3:54:48 PM

Quote :

"The status quo is they go to emergency rooms for colds as it is, we pay for it. The pre-existing conditions clause very well could make everyone else have to pay more, but penalizing people that don't pay for insurance isn't one of those ways."

We will continue to pay for people to go to the emergency room for colds. Massachusetts is proof positive of that. In addition, by mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions we will find ourselves paying for people who choose not to have coverage until they need it.

Quote :

"The pre-existing conditions clause very well could make everyone else have to pay more, but penalizing people that don't pay for insurance isn't one of those ways."

You're misunderstanding the point. Penalizing people who don't pay for insurance won't cost us more. Mandating the everyone have coverage or pay taxes, subsidizing premiums for people who can't afford insurance and then requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of insurability or pre-existing conditions however will. In addition to subsidizing premiums, instead of just paying costs of care directly, we'll also be paying extra premiums to cover people who choose not to take insurance until they need it. Again, why would anyone pay $1,000 / year for crappy insurance when they can pay $750 in taxes and have their coverage mandated and guaranteed by the government when they need it?

Sure you and I won't make that choice, but that's because our insurance is good. The crappy stuff we'll subsidize and mandate for people will be like the Massachusetts plans. Extremely high deductible that is about as good as not having insurance at all. And the people who have to choose between $1000 year for that, or $750 in taxes will choose the taxes.

Quote :

"the fact the insurers are so eager to support this must mean it isn't going to hurt their bottom line via that mechanism, thus it won't hurt our bottom line via higher premiums. Via higher taxes, maybe. "

Are you serious? Did you really just say that? You can't think of a way that a plan which mandates that people buy a company's product, which limits the competitors of that company and gives them every excuse in the world to hike their premiums will hurt the average American's bottom line? As to higher taxes, 30% of americans already can't afford to pay the taxes we have now, how is increasing that number going to help us?

Quote :

"-Hospitals currently have to increase their patient fees by 15% or more to cover losses due to uninsured patients. Reducing the number of uninsured patients should allow hospitals to lower their fees. -Insurance companies will pay out less money for smaller hospital bills and get an increase in subscribers. -More insurance-holders means more people choosing preventative care, which means more expensive crises averted. Thus, less expensive payouts from insurers. Of course, having to cover those with pre-existing conditions will mean higher costs, but eventually we would all end up paying for it anyways in the form of higher hospital fees for everyone. "

In order:

1) The fees will remain the same. Having insurance != having the ability to pay. See Massachusetts.
2) Health care consumption will go up not down. Smaller bills but more of them is a wash. Also note that more things paid by insurance instead of directly by the consumer = higher costs for all. That's why surgery on our eyes is less than 3k and a broken leg is more than 12k.
3) Preventive care is at best a wash. Most of your health care costs come at the end of your life. And while yes, catching your cancer at 20 means you'll live to see 80 instead of 30, you'll still be bleeding money in the end.

12/19/2009 4:24:16 PM

Quote :

"We will continue to pay for people to go to the emergency room for colds. Massachusetts is proof positive of that. In addition, by mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions we will find ourselves paying for people who choose not to have coverage until they need it."

Yes, that's what I said more or less verbatim, the only difference is you left the part out where we charge them $750. If you want to counter that a majority of these people don't pay taxes anyway, so what? On a pure total cost to society basis, anything we can get from moochers over what we don't get now lowers everyone elses cost.

Quote :

"Mandating the everyone have coverage or pay taxes, subsidizing premiums for people who can't afford insurance and then requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of insurability or pre-existing conditions however will."

How so? Do we expect vast swaths of people that currently just die out of the system to start using the services? What about the people that let colds turn into pneumonia and then get treatment? From a cost and productive point of view, it's better to have a healthy population than a sick one. Same goes for the paid under the table construction worker that is injured on the job and doesn't see a doctor because he can't afford it. Rather than getting treated and healed as quickly as possible, he is going back to work in an impaired state, possibly doing permanent damage to himself, removing another person from the work pool and ultimately winding up as a cripple on medicaid. Only focusing on the costs side of the equation while ignoring the benefits is a bit obtuse.

Quote :

"Again, why would anyone pay $1,000 / year for crappy insurance when they can pay $750 in taxes and have their coverage mandated and guaranteed by the government when they need it?"

Sounds reasonable to me. For folks that go a whole year without needing many/any services (think young adults) that $750 doesn't go to the insurance crooks and they have an additional $250 to spend into the economy.

Quote :

"You can't think of a way that a plan which mandates that people buy a company's product, which limits the competitors of that company and gives them every excuse in the world to hike their premiums will hurt the average American's bottom line?"

Which part of this plan limits competition?

12/19/2009 4:42:49 PM

Quote :

"Sounds reasonable to me. For folks that go a whole year without needing many/any services (think young adults) that $750 doesn't go to the insurance crooks and they have an additional $250 to spend into the economy."

paying in when you are young and 'dont need it' is what offsets the costs later in life.

only paying the penalty then 'jumping in' when you get sick (because of the requirement of the insurers to cover pre-existing conditions) will only raise the rates of those of us responsible enough to purchase a policy.

this is why this bill is a big bag of FAIL. if the penalty were a lot higher, painful for a person not covering themselves, we would be closer to what we need.

12/19/2009 5:52:52 PM

So what you're saying is the private health care industry is a ponzi scheme, but we shouldn't consider reforming it?

Quote :

"this is why this bill is a big bag of FAIL. if the penalty were a lot higher, painful for a person not covering themselves, we would be closer to what we need."

Are you kidding? It IS painful for people without coverage. For those with assets and income, they get bankrupted if they don't have it. And it happens every day. You people seem to continue whining about those that don't currently have coverage. As a total net cost to society I have a hard time seeing how it hits our bottom line unless the reality is more people are dieing earlier under the current system than with a reformed system.

Covering more people in the society will be a net benefit because a healthier population is more productive. This is a fact. The parts of the reform that are lacking are things like not letting us purchase drugs outside of the country, not having systems and incentives that encourage better health and fitness, and not rationing the most expensive EOL procedures that extend life for short periods of time at very very expensive costs.



[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 6:28:08 PM

bottom line is this.

this will fail in its format if you cover pre-existing conditions for people who do not carry a policy. most people will opt to pay the $750 penalty rather than pay for their own policy which would be more expensive.

12/19/2009 7:03:16 PM

Quote :

"Covering more people in the society will be a net benefit because a healthier population is more productive. This is a fact."

No, it is conjecture, because one does not follow the other unless you're willing to impose state will upon the dietary and exercise habits of free men and women.

Even if this were the case, this chart wouldn't be true:

12/19/2009 7:06:10 PM

^In case you can't see it, that's giving a "Don't hotlink my stuff" image.

12/19/2009 7:08:10 PM

Quote :

"No, it is conjecture, because one does not follow the other unless you're willing to impose state will upon the dietary and exercise habits of free men and women."

What? State will has nothing to do with it. If I'm at home with a cold that morphs into pneumonia, I'm clearly not producing a good or service.

If I rupture a disc in my back constructing a home and I never get treated for it, it will ultimately debilitate me to the point of putting me out of work forever if I allow it to go untreated.

12/19/2009 7:27:12 PM

Quote :

"On a pure total cost to society basis, anything we can get from moochers over what we don't get now lowers everyone elses cost."

What you're not getting is that we aren't going to get any money from the "moochers". Those who are "moochers" now are going to be subsidized by the tax payers (just like they are now, except more inefficiently). The only people paying the $750 are going to be the people who currently exist on the border of having insurance, who wont qualify for the subsidies and reasonably won't want to pay more than $750 for insurance they don't need and won't help them. Since these people will no longer be contributing their full premiums into the insurance pool, but we will still cover them anyway by law, everyone who continues to pay premiums will see an increase to offset the losses from those choosing not the buy insurance until they need it, on top of the extra costs that come from subsidizing moochers insurance instead of their true medical expenses.

I really don't get how you don't see that this system will increase total costs.

Quote :

"How so? Do we expect vast swaths of people that currently just die out of the system to start using the services?"

Well yes. That would sort of be the point of providing everyone with insurance would it not? To get them to start using the medical services out there?

Quote :

"What about the people that let colds turn into pneumonia and then get treatment? From a cost and productive point of view, it's better to have a healthy population than a sick one. Same goes for the paid under the table construction worker that is injured on the job and doesn't see a doctor because he can't afford it. Rather than getting treated and healed as quickly as possible, he is going back to work in an impaired state, possibly doing permanent damage to himself, removing another person from the work pool and ultimately winding up as a cripple on medicaid. Only focusing on the costs side of the equation while ignoring the benefits is a bit obtuse."

All of this is completely independent of whether or not any of these people have insurance. Again if this were the sort of stuff our politicians were really concerned about, then we would be talking about funding public clinics and increasing the laws that encourage charitable giving. We would also be eliminating laws that classify "subscriptions" to doctor services as insurance, opening up new channels of payment.

But none of the proposed laws do anything like this because the discussion isn't about getting medical care to everyone, it's about getting insurance to everyone. It's corporate welfare because in a few more years, most people and most businesses won't be able to afford insurance and will be looking for something new. By mandating that everyone have insurance, the government ensures a customer base for years to come, no matter what the price, because as the price goes up, they can always tax the people who can afford it to pay for those who can't. The proposed bills aren't about health care they're about health insurance.

Quote :

"Sounds reasonable to me. For folks that go a whole year without needing many/any services (think young adults) that $750 doesn't go to the insurance crooks and they have an additional $250 to spend into the economy. "

1) Insurance works by having multiple people pay in smaller amounts to ensure that larger amounts are there when needed. In order for this to work, people need to pay in when they don't need the service. Otherwise, it's just a savings account.
2) The $750 will go to the "insurance crooks" because that's the whole purpose of the tax, to subsidize insurance for people who can't afford it. To be fair, the whole $750 won't go to the insurance company, I'm sure a good 10 - 20% will be skimmed off for "expenses" (read houses in the Hamptons)
3) People already make that decision now, the difference is today, they have an additional $1,000 to spend in the economy. After this bill they will have $250.

Quote :

"Which part of this plan limits competition? "

The part that requires insurance plans to conform to specific government prescribed forms. By increasing the amount of things a given plan must cover by law, the government raises the barrier of entry for competition by ensuring that no smaller competitors can get a foot hold by offering less services at a lower price. And you'd be a fool not to think that which companies can provide "government approved" plans won't be a politicized process.

Quote :

"So what you're saying is the private health care industry is a ponzi scheme, but we shouldn't consider reforming it? "

Not a ponzi scheme, a gamble that by definition, most people must lose. If everyone got out of insurance what they paid into it, it would be called a savings account, not insurance. Look around 2000, the average lifetime expenditures for a person on health care was about $300,000 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/). With a life expectancy of about 75, that means that in order for a full cost insurance plan to break even, they need to collect a premium of a little over $300 / month / person, which incidentally is about what a high end health insurance plan will cost you per person per month. That's for an average person. In order for there to be money available for people who get cancer, get into accidents, have back surgeries, stay on life support for months etc etc, everyone needs to be paying in all the time, and they need to actually pay in more than they take out on average. It's not a ponzi scheme, but it does require most people to lose, that's why your premium goes up with likelihood of payout for all types of insurance. Do you seriously not understand how insurance works?

Quote :

"You people seem to continue whining about those that don't currently have coverage. As a total net cost to society I have a hard time seeing how it hits our bottom line unless the reality is more people are dieing earlier under the current system than with a reformed system."

Because we're not talking about providing health care, we're talking about providing health insurance. They are two vastly different things.

Quote :

"Covering more people in the society will be a net benefit because a healthier population is more productive. This is a fact."

Not necessarily. Indefinite coverage for Teri Schiavo would not have been a net increase in productivity. Further, insurance coverage != health care or healthy people. Again look at Massachusetts, a real life case study of exactly the sort of plans were talking about now. Massachusetts has near universal coverage, and the number of people going the emergency room for common colds is still going up, people still aren't getting healthier, the system has increased costs and is already beyond projected budgets, the state is already considering costs, and they've already to delay payments.

Quote :

"The parts of the reform that are lacking are things like not letting us purchase drugs outside of the country, not having systems and incentives that encourage better health and fitness, and not rationing the most expensive EOL procedures that extend life for short periods of time at very very expensive costs."

The drug problem would be helpful to solve that much I can agree with you on, however, there are systems and incentives for better health and there is rationing for expensive EOL procedures. They are insurance premiums and denials respectively. But as a society we don't want that. We want coverage no matter how unhealthy we are, and we want all procedures covered no matter what. A good example of this was that girl a few years back who wanted an experimental transplant that would give her a 50% shot at living an additional 6 months. Cigna denied the claim and in between the appeal and the reversal of the denial, the parents pulled the plug and the girl died. Society eviscerated Cigna for that, but that is exactly the sort of thing you're talking about.

12/20/2009 5:49:46 PM

Quote :

""Which part of this plan limits competition? " The part that requires insurance plans to conform to specific government prescribed forms. By increasing the amount of things a given plan must cover by law, the government raises the barrier of entry for competition by ensuring that no smaller competitors can get a foot hold by offering less services at a lower price. And you'd be a fool not to think that which companies can provide "government approved" plans won't be a politicized process. "

lol, are you serious? The cost of insurance has been rising steadily, do you realize this? Where are all these lower-cost, but crippled plans now?

Being against a minimum services floor is like saying that child labor should be legal, and sanitation laws are a bad thing. It’s based on theories that are naive to how the real-world operates.

12/20/2009 6:07:35 PM

Quote :

"^In case you can't see it, that's giving a "Don't hotlink my stuff" image."

Yeah, sorry. It was basically a graph demonstrating that the per-capita GDP in the US, as measured in Purchasing Power Parity, was higher than any of the European states mentioned and, in fact Mississippi was actually higher than many European states.

FWIW.

12/20/2009 7:34:07 PM

Quote :

"The cost of insurance has been rising steadily, do you realize this? Where are all these lower-cost, but crippled plans now?"

probably outlawed because plans have minimum mandates as required by the laws of various states. or do you really not believe that mandating coverage for something will increase the cost of overall coverage?

12/20/2009 10:43:48 PM

Quote :

"Being against a minimum services floor is like saying that child labor should be legal, and sanitation laws are a bad thing. It’s based on theories that are naive to how the real-world operates."

Yes because mandating coverage for prayer based healing is exactly like requiring employees to wash their hands after wiping their ass.


[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/20/2009 10:57:54 PM

the nc museum of history had an exhibit on that for years before they decided they needed to make money and put some special stuff in

i loved to chill out on the coughing part in the sanatorium

12/20/2009 11:36:08 PM

Quote :

"Being against a minimum services floor is like saying that child labor should be legal, and sanitation laws are a bad thing. It’s based on theories that are naive to how the real-world operates."

Bingo! ... A minimum level of healthcare is more of a philosophical question than an economic one. On one side is the, "a certain level of healthcare for even the poorest is a basic tenent of a civilized society" folks, and on the other side is the, "Fuck'em if they can't afford it. That's the way the freemarket works.", folks.

It becomes less of an issue when healthcare is affordable, but when it cost prohibitive it's just, ... barbaric.

Quote :

" Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane."

MLK

I don't necessarly agree with his statement, in that whenever you have differences in income you will have "inequity" (by definition). But, I do think there should be some minimum level of healthcare for everyone - as a matter of principle.


[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

12/21/2009 10:48:12 AM

Yeah, it's not though. A big part of the problem is that insurance companies are paying for all of these routine expenses, rather than unexpected expenses. Insurance operates by taking premiums from a lot of people in order to pool the risks together. Like someone mentioned in this thread or in another thread, if you start covering not just risks but normal expenses, it's no longer insurance. It's a group savings account, which is terrible, because other people are usually going to use the "savings account" funds a lot more than you, but they might pay similar premiums. Premiums can only go up, and having a "minimum services floor" is a contributing factor.

12/21/2009 10:57:56 AM

SOLD: Sen. Nelson's Bribe

Quote :

"We'll be blunt. The 'health care reform' legislation under consideration in the Senate is the most corrupt piece of legislation in our nation's history. Yes, we understand that is a strong statement and there have been other abominations throughout our nation's life. But never before did corrupt legislation threaten to radically and forever change the live's of every American. Exhibit A is the outright bribe extracted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Corn Huckster State) from Sen. Harry Reid. As a result of Nelson's performance in his role of Hamlet in the health care deliberations, we will have two health care systems in this country; one for Nebraska and one for the other 49 states. In its quixotic attempt to ensure everyone has health insurance, the Reid legislation greatly expands Medicaid eligibility. Because Medicaid is a program whose costs are split between the federal and state governments, this expansion in eligibility raise costs dramatically for states. States will be forced to either raise taxes or cut other services to accommodate the forced increase in Medicaid spending. Unless that state is Nebraska. Below is the text for Nelson's bribe. Under this language the federal government will forever cover the costs of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska. Taxpayers in every other state will forever be responsible for the expanded Medicaid program in Nebraska."

Quote :

"Mutual of Omaha and Nebraska's Blue Cross/Blue Shield won't have to pay a tax other companies will be required to pay."

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/19/sen-nelsons-bribe/

BUT, BUT IT'S REPUBLICANS WHO ARE IN THE HIP POCKET OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, RIGHT? RIGHT?!!1

12/22/2009 5:01:04 AM

Come on, if the Republicans had wanted to do anything, lord knows they've had their chance. They may have some good ideas, some that would be common sense no-brainers, but the truth of the matter is that they have never tried to get involved. That's because anything that passes with the name healthcare reform on it is a win for Obama the Democrats, and magnifys the Republican's failure (or unwillingness) to get anything done that has their name on it.

Or, in the words of GrumpyGOP:

Quote :

" The effective short- to mid-range policy is to keep blocking Obama on everything and then blaming him for not getting anywhere, eroding the support of people who expect great things and got none. Then co-opt a lot of much of what the administration is saying, run on that, and use our normal powers of brutal republican efficiency to ram it through congress. Take credit and bask in the glow of popularity until you find some new way to fuck it up."

12/22/2009 8:33:50 AM

A single Republican could have stepped forward yesterday and promised to vote for cloture if the Nebraska thing was removed.

But they didn't. GG, GOP.

12/22/2009 8:43:05 AM

^^Even if Republicans got some stuff they wanted in the bill, it would still include all the garbage from Democrats, so they'd ultimately have to vote against it anyway. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of taking a principled stand against something that you think is bad for the country. It's not always just partisan bickering.

^Yes, a Republican also could have stepped forward and promised to vote for cloture if the bill was changed entirely, but it wouldn't have happened. It would be better to not vote for cloture and let Democrats get stuck with this pork-filled abomination of a bill.

12/22/2009 8:56:23 AM

Quote :

"^Yes, a Republican also could have stepped forward and promised to vote for cloture if the bill was changed entirely, but it wouldn't have happened. It would be better to not vote for cloture and let Democrats get stuck with this pork-filled abomination of a bill."

But I guarantee my scenario would work. The Democrats could say "lol nvm Nelson," remove a pretty crappy part of the bill, and call it a bipartisan bill. It'd be win-win.


(and PS, I want to wait to get an official interpretation of the Nebraska thing cited by hooksaw. It's from a site run by Brietbart, and it's relying on their own, assuredly dumb, interpretation of some rather dense stuff)

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 9:11 AM. Reason : ]

12/22/2009 9:08:38 AM

You can't have it both ways d357r0y3r. Either they want to get some of their ideas installed, or they don't. I think history has shown that they don't.

12/22/2009 9:11:31 AM

We now have a bill that exactly fits what insurance companies have been asking for since last summer.

12/22/2009 9:20:42 AM

There was a great special about healthcare on Stossel. Easiest way to watch it is here: http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-%e2%80%98stossel%e2%80%99-from-fox-business-%e2%80%93-december-17-2009/

He has John Mackey of Whole Foods on as a guest, and the audience seems to have a good balance as far as political views. Both Stossel and Mackey make a lot of good points. At one point, Mackey (in response to the comments of an audience member) said exactly what I had been thinking, which is that the current bill isn't providing healthcare. It's providing health insurance, and that's the wrong way to approach the problem.

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 9:45 AM. Reason : ]

12/22/2009 9:43:32 AM

^ It's a moot point ... because the Republicans haven't done shit about anything, except complain that nothing is the right approach ...

12/22/2009 9:53:37 AM

^^ Are we talking about the same John Mackey that went on Internet message boards and trashed Whole Foods' competition like a 12 year old schoolkid? I'm not surprised that Fox Business thought he has credibility on anything.

12/22/2009 9:57:02 AM

It's not a moot point. Forcing everyone to buy insurance is the wrong way to bring down costs. That's just going to bring up costs, guaranteed. Republicans have come out with their own ideas for reform, some good, some bad. Democrats are in power, and they decide what stays in the bill, so I don't buy the idea that Republicans could have done something but didn't. In many cases, they were completely excluded from the debate.

In any case, I don't really give a damn what Republicans have contributed to the bill, because most of them are still missing the point on healthcare. We need to let the market work here. More government mandates and regulations are not going to bring down costs. As Mackey says on the show, health services are not fundamentally different than any other good or service. Competition will bring prices down.

^I don't know anything about that, but I also don't know how it's relevant.

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 10:07 AM. Reason : ]

12/22/2009 10:05:26 AM

^ Well, they did have eight years to implement something and didn't do anything ... so ... history tells the tale.

Now all they can do is complain ... (of course, as I mentioned, they have no interest in success at this point).

Confucius say:

"When you let the train pass you by, you can't complain about others getting a ride" ....

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

12/22/2009 10:10:51 AM

Quote :

"1) The fees will remain the same. Having insurance != having the ability to pay. See Massachusetts. 2) Health care consumption will go up not down. Smaller bills but more of them is a wash. Also note that more things paid by insurance instead of directly by the consumer = higher costs for all. That's why surgery on our eyes is less than 3k and a broken leg is more than 12k. 3) Preventive care is at best a wash. Most of your health care costs come at the end of your life. And while yes, catching your cancer at 20 means you'll live to see 80 instead of 30, you'll still be bleeding money in the end. "

1. I'm only repeating what hospitals themselves are saying.
2. More bills is irrelevant because there are more subcriber payments. In principle, the ratio of bills to subscribers will stay the same. Thus, smaller bills are an improvement.
3. By your logic, health-care should be illegal.

12/22/2009 10:18:59 AM

Ive used this example many times. Great video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E29LD98ruo

The thing I would add is a dollar for dollar tax deduction for doctors/hospitals to see nonpaying/poor patients. It provides a real incentive and without the hassle of filling/dealing with medicaid.

12/22/2009 2:17:38 PM