__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Cool. I don't shop at Whole Foods because the SUV crowd there are just fucking annoying.
My God, if only we would have listened to Ronnie back in '61 America would still be free. Damn you Medicare, damn you all to hell! Hilarious.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Thinking the government is going to waste money isn't the opinion of just idiots. Thinking that health care isn't a right, isn't just for cold hearted bastards. Every time someone makes a cartoon or a characterization (on either side), that claims people who disagree with them are idiots they do a disservice to their cause.
There are many current examples of the gov't wasting money. Some people (not all) make choices not to take jobs that offer health benefits, so that they can get other benefits. Including following their dream to do job X, or so that they can make money off of a commission type basis or work for themselves as a contractor.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
NYT ran an editorial from President Obama this weekend. There's nothing particularly new or interesting in it for anybody who has been following this debate closely, but I have some comments:
Quote:
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.
Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
So we're going to increase the benefits to seniors at the same time as Medicare enrollment increases due to an aging population and have enough money to pay for it all by improving efficiency. I'm excited to see the details of how this will work. I'll withhold my skepticism for now.
Quote:
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.
Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end.
This is the only part that had any policy specifiics. I'm no actuary, but I've read this section and reread it. I can't wrap my mind around how this policy could possibly do anything but increase the rate of growth of health care costs.
Quote:
We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do.
Well, for fuck's sake, Mr. President, get Congress to write a bill that includes only that 80% and git 'er done. You might even build enough political capital with that sort of bipartisanship to pass another bill with some of the other things you'd like to do.
Quote:
But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.
It's all always great when they decry scare tactics and respond with scare tactics.
I read the same Op-ed, Axis, and all I kept hearing was "ka-ching" as I read on. The Administration's message is very muddy, no one is staying on talking points. Is it any wonder that the public is confused.
TAPPER: Critics say they're uneasy about end-of-life care measures being discussed within the context of cost-cutting. Can you understand that discomfort?
SEBELIUS: Well, I think end-of-life discussions are very, very personal and very difficult, very difficult for family members, very difficult often for people to confront. My own mother spent 10 weeks in three different hospitals before she died, and I can tell you, it was the most agonizing, most painful, most terrible time for not only me and my siblings, but for my dad.
And what every family wants is good information and an ability to make a decision that suits their loved one the best way that the family is involved and engaged. And I think it's really horrific that some opponents of the health reform bill have used this painful, personal moment to try and scare people about what is in the bill.
Nothing could be further from the truth that there's somehow a death panel. If anything, you know, seniors should welcome the fact that doctors would have a payment provided to sit down with family members, if they choose, and -- and have a discussion.
We were desperate to do that. There were way too many specialists in and out of the room and way too little time to actually sit with someone and try to understand what was going on in my mom's case. And I -- I talk to people each and every day who are having that same difficulty.
We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table. And that's not good news for the American public and not good news for family members.
TAPPER: Well, that's what I was going to ask, because it's not just opponents who have discomfort about talking about end-of-life care within the context of cost-cutting, because the reports are that the Senate Finance Committee is not going to include anything having to do with end-of-life care measures, and that -- that was dropped even before this brouhaha prompted by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The House Democratic bill, of course, does have those provisions.
How important is it to the Obama administration that end-of-life care be addressed in health care reform?
SEBELIUS: Well, again, it isn't about cost-cutting. It's really about providing some comfort and opportunity for family -- to empower family members and to empower, actually, often the patient who is coping with some steps that need to be taken and to make good decisions.
What you need is somebody who can sit down with some medical advice, who knows the family, who knows the patient, and -- and have a conversation, and often that doesn't happen or it's very difficult to have happen. Doctors are too busy; people are rushing in and out of hospital rooms; you're trying to make decisions.
So this was actually to provide reimbursement for that consultation, if the family chose to have it. I'm hoping that, at the end of the day, that it will be part of the overall package, because it's one of the most important conversations a family may ever have. And certainly to try and get some good information, make some decisions, include the patient in those decisions, have a realistic discussion about what's happening and -- and what the next steps might be, I think, is -- is so beneficial for family members, who often are operating in the dark and -- and very conflicted about what to do next, what's best for their loved one, what's best for the next steps.
It's not about cost cutting? Then what's it about? Will they have a new code so doctors can be reimbursed for validating your parking?
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
That the rest of the developed world does health care for 60% or less than the US is not demonstration enough for you?
The rest of the world also comes to the US to have medical procedures done. What ratio of people with cardiac problems go to have work done in Canada, verse those Canadians who come down here?
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
The rest of the world also comes to the US to have medical procedures done. What ratio of people with cardiac problems go to have work done in Canada, verse those Canadians who come down here?
I'll adress your specific example by noting that it would be a bit uncommon for Canadiens to choose to go the US for routine problems such as cardiac issues; it is usually for treatment of unusual conditions or for procedures not yet common in Canada (treatment of uncommon conditions conditions would be an area where major US academic centres tend to excel). I have had family members go to the US for very expensive new treatments unavailable here. I have referred acquaintances to my colleagues in the US when they were suffering from unusual conditions where the greatest expertise was to be found at a famous US hospital. Some Canadiens will "jump the queue" by going to the US to pay for relatively routine procedures to avoid the often excessive wait times which plague our system---hence my support for a hybridised (A.K.A. 2-tiered) system, common to other industrialised nations. Occasionally, there have been issues with access to relatively basic medical procedures (e.g., radiation therapy for certain types of cancer) in Canada, and patients have been sent to US border cities at the expense of their provincial govt to receive proper treatment. Canada's system doesn't allow for enough access to private options, IMHO, and I'm the last person who would argue that anyone should copy our deeply flawed model.
I've said several times that I believe that the best available care in the world comes from the US---that's really what your point above is getting at. The problem in the US is access to care for large chunks of society.
I would like you to address something I mentioned in a previous post, i.e., the issue of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops being fairly clear in their support for a universal system. I don't mean for this to denigrate your religious beliefs, of course. I bring it up only because you have been quite clear in regards to your Catholic beliefs, but seem to be very much in opposition to the position of your clerical leaders ( The bishops’ conference views health care as a basic right belonging to all human beingshttp://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34181 ).
How do you reconcile your view, which would seem to be that health care isn't a right, with the view of Catholic clerical leaders, who seem to view it as a right?
The rest of the world also comes to the US to have medical procedures done. What ratio of people with cardiac problems go to have work done in Canada, verse those Canadians who come down here?
How many Americans go to India or Southeast Asia for medical procedures?
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Since the Obama administration has already agreed that any legislation will not allow the government to negotiate drug prices and since he is caving on a government option, I can't see how there is any potiential for cost savings.
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
How do you reconcile your view, which would seem to be that health care isn't a right, with the view of Catholic clerical leaders, who seem to view it as a right?
I do not believe it is the job of the gov't to complete this task. People of their own free will should be able to help those in need. I do not believe a US gov't agency is capable of effectively running a program as large as this. I also don't believe the federal gov't in particular has the right to do this. I would much rather see state run programs.
I would imagine it's similar to people who believe that abortion is "probably" a bad thing, but they don't believe outlawing it is part of the solution.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
I do not believe it is the job of the gov't to complete this task. People of their own free will should be able to help those in need.
And they can. Even in Canada, where the system is more heavily socialised than I consider ideal, private donations are crucial for the construction of new hospitals, the provision of new equipment, etc. Private donors, however, can't ensure universal coverage. If health care is viewed as a right, then private donations won't do the trick on their own.
Quote:
I do not believe a US gov't agency is capable of effectively running a program as large as this. I also don't believe the federal gov't in particular has the right to do this. I would much rather see state run programs.
Canada's program is federally mandated, but administered by the provinces, FWIW. Your idea for state-run programs has precedent.
Quote:
I would imagine it's similar to people who believe that abortion is "probably" a bad thing, but they don't believe outlawing it is part of the solution
I gather this refers to the position taken by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If so, I would disagree. The support seems to me to be clear and unequivocal, and in line with their international brethren. In fact, they tie it to the pro-life position as a whole ( Health care as a right is the Pro-Life position http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...alth_care.html )
Canada's program is federally mandated, but administered by the provinces, FWIW. Your idea for state-run programs has precedent.
I would just think a larger number of smaller programs would work better. States compete on a regular basis for business using tax incentives, higher education, etc. The quality of their health care (price included) would give State's the initiative to do better. If health care is going to be a right, then States should be the one providing it.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
I would just think a larger number of smaller programs would work better. States compete on a regular basis for business using tax incentives, higher education, etc. The quality of their health care (price included) would give State's the initiative to do better. If health care is going to be a right, then States should be the one providing it.
I don't disagree. That's basically how it works here.
Does anyone have more information on health care co-ops? In the case of the article below the co-op actually has their own doctors. I would be interested to see how they handle cases that need doctors with specialties out of their staff's expertise.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
I gather this refers to the position taken by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If so, I would disagree. The support seems to me to be clear and unequivocal, and in line with their international brethren. In fact, they tie it to the pro-life position as a whole ( Health care as a right is the Pro-Life position http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...alth_care.html )
Actually this was in reference to those, including many on this board, that have said they believe abortion is wrong, but that they do not believe outlawing abortion is a good way to fix this problem.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
From 2000 to 2005 (the most recent years I could find statistics for in a quick Google search), health care costs in Switzerland grew from $27.6 billion to $41.4 billion in real dollars, a 50% increase. Per capita, they grew from $3800 to $5500, a 45% increase.
In the same time frame, health care costs in the US grew from $1.2 trillion to $1.8 trillion in real dollars, a 50% increase. Per capita, they grew from $4400 to $6000, a 36% increase.
Where are the magical cost savings in the Swiss model?
source 1, source 2
We need a public option. Bankruptcy of the entire US economy is at stake. Insurance companies need to be confronted that a 17% markup, and faster than COL cannot continue. Unfortunately for them, and their stockholders the value of their stock is thus predicated in the present. Similar dynamics for pharmaceticals.
We need a public option. Bankruptcy of the entire US economy is at stake. Insurance companies need to be confronted that a 17% markup, and faster than COL cannot continue. Unfortunately for them, and their stockholders the value of their stock is thus predicated in the present. Similar dynamics for pharmaceticals.
What current gov't program of this size do you believe has been successful? From what I've been reading recently (correct me if I'm wrong), Medicare and Social Security are headed towards insolvency. Wouldn't a public option that goes bankrupt cause us problems as well?
Please poke holes in this as you see fit with articles that show this is incorrect.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
From 2000 to 2005 (the most recent years I could find statistics for in a quick Google search), health care costs in Switzerland grew from $27.6 billion to $41.4 billion in real dollars, a 50% increase. Per capita, they grew from $3800 to $5500, a 45% increase.
In the same time frame, health care costs in the US grew from $1.2 trillion to $1.8 trillion in real dollars, a 50% increase. Per capita, they grew from $4400 to $6000, a 36% increase.
Where are the magical cost savings in the Swiss model?
source 1, source 2
Wasnt claiming any (yet). I was just addressing your comment that it looks "nothing like the way the rest of the developed world does health care."
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
Wasnt claiming any (yet). I was just addressing your comment that it looks "nothing like the way the rest of the developed world does health care."
Cool. I'll just add that I'm not opposed to the Swiss model or even a public option if the goal is increasing access.
I expect a certain level of dishonestly from politicians, but the idea that they can do this without increasing taxes and/or expanding the deficit is laughable on its face. The least they could do is fudge some numbers and misrepresent some statistics to show how it will work.
They're not even doing that. They're using the brilliant "insult your opponent until he agrees with you" strategy.
So far, I'm a racist, unamerican, conspiracy theorist member of an irrational mob.
What current gov't program of this size do you believe has been successful? From what I've been reading recently (correct me if I'm wrong), Medicare and Social Security are headed towards insolvency. Wouldn't a public option that goes bankrupt cause us problems as well?
Please poke holes in this as you see fit with articles that show this is incorrect.
One thing that gets glossed over in the "oh noes, Medicare is going broke" argument: the roughly 1/3 of the total people insured under Medicare are responsible for 2/3 of the health care costs in the country. They are old and have multiple medical problems and therefore, they use more health care dollars.
Private insurers have the ability to spend less overall (therefore more "efficient") because they tend to insure younger, healthier people, who consume less healthcare dollars to begin with. And, additionally, those that cost them too much often are pruned from their policies as a result. So, they provide insurance to the remaining 2/3 of covered Americans and incur 1/3 of all costs, because the patients are younger, healthier, and consume less healthcare overall.
Now, think about this for a minute. If the remaining 2/3 of these people who currently hold private insurance WERE placed on a, say, expanded medicare program (not all at once, mind you... this would have to be phased in over years to possibly decades), and everyone then paid into the system, and the added people tended to be younger and healthier and therefore cost medicare less while contributing more... the medicare is going broke chicken little mantra would most likely be diverted into solvency.
You have to take into account why medicare costs more. The administrative costs, despite it being a govt run program, are LESS, since there is no advertising and other bullshyte of that ilk needed. If drug prices were able to be negotiated, I think you'd see costs plummet significantly and immediately as well.
There are lots of ways to provide coverage for more people. We just aren't talking about them due to the multiple OOOH shiny! moments taking place in lieu of real discourse.
The second is what the option debate says about Obama.
If progressives had real trust in Obama’s commitment to doing the right thing, the administration would have broad leeway to do deals. But the president doesn’t command that kind of trust.
Partly it’s a matter of style — as many people have noted, he has been weirdly reluctant to make the moral case for universal care, weirdly unable to show passion on the issue, weirdly diffident even about the blatant lies from the right. Partly it’s a spillover from his other policies: by appointing an economic team that’s Rubin redux, by taking such a kindly attitude to the banks, he has squandered a lot of progressive enthusiasm.
Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.
Let us remember, Dems have filibuster proof majority. Lets not pretend it is the minority party here derailing it. Obama can't articulate why/what...is flipping back and forth on the public option, and I see video clips of dems in congress admitting that they have no idea where the president stands and the nuances of the proposed legislation.
Linear Mode
