Quick review of healthcare bill in the HoR

[BeeR]

if you're a visual person

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance.......

 

Another problem we have is everyone seems to think it is your God given right to have $15 doctors appointments and $5 prescription drugs. Could you imagine what your home owners insurance cost would be if it had to pay to repaint your house, or to mow your lawn every week? Yet that is basically what we ask, no demand, that our medical insurance do. Used to people bought insurance for catastrophic accidents, not for well baby check ups. Part of this irrational thought process was again brought to us when the federal government decided to meddle in private business, by capping salaries, so companies started providing medical coverage as additional compensation. Employees looked at it like the better the coverage, the better the compensation they were getting, and since their salaries were capped by the government this was the best way for them to get ahead. This of course has gone from being a perk to being almost a right.

Most excellent points/post.

 

Really it seems to me the selfl-employed are the ones who have it roughest, generally.

 

PS I'm hearing Tricare (military med care plan) is really being hacked at.

[AtomicCEO]

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance.......

 

 

Most excellent points/post.

 

It's tripe. Nobody expects $15 doctors appointments.

 

You're believing BS because you want to. The author of whatever you quoted has boiled down the healthcare problem to something which is a fantasy inside the minds of people not paying attention. Good lord. No wonder Republicans can't win an election.

 

"People who think healthcare has problems are wrong!"

"Trickle down economics work great!"

"Sarah Palin is a fantastic leader!"

 

This is a fantastic platform for 2010. Run with that.

[Perchoutofwater]

That said, before I give your first argument any credence at all and not assume it's yet another knee jerk free market call on your part, wouldn't it warrant determining how many of the 36 countries on that list ranked above us have little or no government health system?

 

Before I can respond to this I'd have to know what criteria were used in the ranking, as well as the cost per capita for the health care they are receiving. I'd also have to know is it a homogeneous society or a heterogeneous society. In addition to that we also would have to take into account the standard of living, and how much exercise the average person receives in each country, and the regional cuisine. As diet and exercise both play an important part in health. Obviously if the standard of living is too low, diet will more than likely be affected, but conversely if the standard of living is too high, diet can also be negatively affected because of a rich diet, as well as a sedentary lifestyle that often accompanies a higher standard of living.

 

In other words are they comparing apples to apples? What assumptions are being made, what criteria was being used to judge, who did the study, and were the assumptions and criteria biased to produce a desired outcome?

[bushwacked]

2. No. You're a big f'in baby constantly complaining that everything anyone does hurts small business. It's become an annoying whine underneath every conversation about politics for the past year and I don't even hear it anymore.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

1. I'm not usually 100% happy with any bill coming out of congress, but I think that the change we are planning to make is significantly better than no change at all.

 

2. No. You're a big f'in baby constantly complaining that everything anyone does hurts small business. It's become an annoying whine underneath every conversation about politics for the past year and I don't even hear it anymore.

 

Rather than call me names look at the following and tell me where you disagree.

 

The current House Plan will require the vast majority of employers averaging 9 or more employees to either provide health care for all their employees or pay what amounts to an 8% payroll tax for not providing health care. (Isn't it interesting that business will be required to pay 8%, but individuals only 4%) The latest figures show the average work week to be 33 hours. Now lets say you run a business and have 30 employees working 33 hours each week, for a total of 990 man hours a week. You are going to be required to either provide them with health insurance or pay an 8% payroll tax by this new plan. If you are smart, what do you do? If you are smart, you decrease your workforce by 16.6%, and have 25 guys working 39.6 hours and let 5 guys go. Then you realized, you know what my guys all make $10 an hour, so I just saved $158.40 a week if I go the 8% route, and a whole lot more if I was going to provide them with insurance. If you provide any perks at all, it would be cheaper to cut one more employee and work the remaining 24 employees 41.25 hours a week. So with this health care bill on a dollar and cents basis, an employer would be better cutting his 30 man work force to 24 men, or cutting his workforce by 20%.

 

So, how does this bill not encourage reducing the size of the workforce and thus increasing unemployment?

Edited July 16, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[westvirginia]

Don't confuse them with the facts, their minds are already made up.

 

How can anyone not realize that any cost fedgov mandates on ANY business is paid for by either the users or producers of the product in question?

[Perchoutofwater]

Don't confuse them with the facts, their minds are already made up.

 

How can anyone not realize that any cost fedgov mandates on ANY business is paid for by either the users or producers of the product in question?

 

Hey, I've got an open mind. I might not be against this bill if the economy wasn't in the tank, and unemployment wasn't at a 25 year high ( a full 1.5% higher than Obama told us it would get if we passed his non-stimulus "stimulus" plan, and 0.5% higher than Obama said it would be if we didn't do anything.) I just want someone to tell me where I'm mistaken? How is this bill anything but a job and economy killer?

Edited July 16, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[detlef]

Before I can respond to this I'd have to know what criteria were used in the ranking, as well as the cost per capita for the health care they are receiving. I'd also have to know is it a homogeneous society or a heterogeneous society. In addition to that we also would have to take into account the standard of living, and how much exercise the average person receives in each country, and the regional cuisine. As diet and exercise both play an important part in health. Obviously if the standard of living is too low, diet will more than likely be affected, but conversely if the standard of living is too high, diet can also be negatively affected because of a rich diet, as well as a sedentary lifestyle that often accompanies a higher standard of living.

 

In other words are they comparing apples to apples? What assumptions are being made, what criteria was being used to judge, who did the study, and were the assumptions and criteria biased to produce a desired outcome?

So, without knowing what criteria they were using, you had no problem assuming that our health care sucked because we don't employ a free market mentality. However, you need to know the criteria in order to explain why there are plenty ranked ahead of us who have greater gov't control over health care than us.

 

How convenient.

 

Oh, and this is where your do-boy WV makes some crack about us not wanting to hear facts.

[bpwallace49]

So, without knowing what criteria they were using, you had no problem assuming that our health care sucked because we don't employ a free market mentality. However, you need to know the criteria in order to explain why there are plenty ranked ahead of us who have greater gov't control over health care than us.

 

How convenient.

 

Oh, and this is where your do-boy WV makes some crack about us not wanting to hear facts.

 

 

But . .but . .but . . . our health care system CANT have anything wrong with it! Dont you know we are AMERICA! NOTHING made in America can have any flaws in it? And if something DOES, it is either Obama's fault or not included in the constitution!

 

LOL.

[BeeR]

It's tripe. Nobody expects $15 doctors appointments.

You (surprise) missed the broader point of (many) Americans being spoiled and having extremely high expectations of health care. And hate to break it to you but many people DO expect cheap doctor visits and prescriptions.

 

You're believing BS because you want to. The author of whatever you quoted has boiled down the healthcare problem to something which is a fantasy inside the minds of people not paying attention. Good lord. No wonder Republicans can't win an election.

Unlike you, I'm not wrapped up in this Democrats vs Republicans BS. Have fun playing that little ping-pong game with others if you want; I'll pass as personally I think it got very old and lame a lonnnnnng time ago.

 

"People who think healthcare has problems are wrong!"

"Trickle down economics work great!"

"Sarah Palin is a fantastic leader!"

yeah that's what I'm saying.

 

So much for taking you seriously on this.

Edited July 16, 2009 by BeeR

[Azazello1313]

my question: why are obamapelosi trying to ram through the most partisan type of plan possible? it not only has unanimous republican opposition, but also almost every serious moderate democrat as well. only the far left support this bill.

 

obama ran as a guy who would strive against partisanship. he would seek bipartisan consensus and pragmatic compromise. well when it comes to health insurance, there seems to be just that sort of proposal out there in the wyden-bennett bill in the senate (read more about it here). the wyden bill appeals to democrats because it provides universal coverage. it appeals to republicans because it fosters competition. it appeals to anyone who gives a damn about the deficit because, according to the CBO, it pays for itself.

 

yet instead, we are getting a staunchly partisan pile of dung that even centrists in the president's own party can't support.

[Azazello1313]

CBO chief: Dem plan would weaken economy, provide no cost savings

 

Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would worsen an already bleak budget outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

 

"On the contrary," Elmendorf said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."

 

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have said repeatedly that reining in the skyrocketing growth in spending on government health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare is their top priority, the reform measures put forth so far would not fulfill their pledge to "bend the cost curve" downward, Elmendorf said. Instead, he said, "The curve is being raised."

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), has taken a leading role in that effort. This morning, after receiving Elmendorf's testimony on the nation's long-term budget outlook, Conrad turned immediately to questions about the emerging health care measures.

 

"I'm going to really put you on the spot," Conrad told Elmendorf. "From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"

 

Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman."

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Read the whole thing here.

[bpwallace49]

Some issues that "I think" even the most partisan politicians on this site can agree to (I hope)

 

1.) Our medical system is behind other industrialized nations

2.) The US spends a disproportionate amount of GDP on health care

3.) The current health care in the US needs some sort of revision to remain viable for its citizens

 

Does anyone think that health care in US is just great the way it is now?

 

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/...ear_080711.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115927289880274192.html

 

Here is another quote from the oft-quotes-by-more-conservative-guys-here Wall Street Journal.

 

Consumers are struggling with record health-care costs -- which have climbed at several times the rate of inflation and wage increases for the past decade -- just as they face a barrage of economic pressures, from declining retirement-savings accounts to higher energy and food prices. The annual cost of an average family health plan rose to $12,680 this year, more than double the $5,791 it cost in 1999, according to the Kaiser survey. Workers' annual contributions to those premiums have also more than doubled, to $3,354 in 2008 from $1,543 in 1999.

 

Does anyone REALLY think there isnt any problems with the system???

 

I think there are MAJOR gaps in the current bill, and it doesnt address many of these issues. But to blithely ignore the situation or merely snipe at differences in the bill instead of ACTUALLY generating somthing that might HELP the situation is just as bad.

 

Kudos to Obama for having the balls to at least try and get something done, but bah humbug for how this was developed and executed. What an opportunity lost . . . .

 

. . .and I anxiously await the plan from the Republicans that will help the situation . . . . I had better get ready for a looooooong wait.

[westvirginia]

So, without knowing what criteria they were using, you had no problem assuming that our health care sucked because we don't employ a free market mentality. However, you need to know the criteria in order to explain why there are plenty ranked ahead of us who have greater gov't control over health care than us.

 

How convenient.

 

Oh, and this is where your do-boy WV makes some crack about us not wanting to hear facts.

 

 

In a perfect world, the gov't would stay the heck out of healthcare entirely. Looking at things from a perspective of the hand we've been dealt, I don't necessarily disagree that some type of fedgov insurance needs to happen. As many have said, we're already paying for folks with no insurance via increased bills, increased insurance premiums, etc. So giving these folks some kind of insurance is probably acceptable. That's a FAR cry from forcing businesses into some form of insurance or getting between the Dr/patient relationship and rationing care.

 

My comment about facts was strictly related to that one portion about the 8% on businesses with 9 or more employees. Heck, the ADA has a floor of businesses with 15 employees. If you want to control costs the current plan in congress is demonstrably NOT the way to do it.

[bpwallace49]

getting between the Dr/patient relationship and rationing care.

 

Isnt that EXACTLY what insurance agents do right now? Tell you what will be covered, who you can go to, and what procedures are covered/not covered?

 

Hell, the insurance agents even tell you what DOCTOR you can go to . . . if you want any of it covered under the large premiums you pay every month . . .

[Ursa Majoris]

Isnt that EXACTLY what insurance agents do right now? Tell you what will be covered, who you can go to, and what procedures are covered/not covered?

 

Hell, the insurance agents even tell you what DOCTOR you can go to . . . if you want any of it covered under the large premiums you pay every month . . .

You also have to get permission off them to have any procedure done in the first place and they AUTOMATICALLY send your doctor a request for more information regardless of the amount they have already been given.

 

One of the right wing criticisms that should surprise me (but doesn't) is the repetition about government bureaucracy when health care bureaucracy is incredibly bloated and inefficient.

[Perchoutofwater]

So, without knowing what criteria they were using, you had no problem assuming that our health care sucked because we don't employ a free market mentality. However, you need to know the criteria in order to explain why there are plenty ranked ahead of us who have greater gov't control over health care than us.

 

How convenient.

 

Oh, and this is where your do-boy WV makes some crack about us not wanting to hear facts.

 

Nope, I didn't say health care sucked, I'm actually pleased with my health care, and seem to be in the overwhelming majority, as 82% are satisfied with their health care as well according to a poll taken just last year. As a matter of fact, more people are happy with their medical care today then they were in 1993. I actually bought into the Obama hype on this, because of the media's willingness to go along with him. My only complaint is the cost, which are largely so hid due to the government.

 

Now it can and should be argued that government has driven up the cost of health care in thre ways, and I don't see how that can be denied by anyone that looks at it honestly. The first goes back to our friend FDR, when he had his buddies in congress pass legislation that limited wages. As a result employers looking for a more attractive employee started offering health insurance as a perk. Prior to this only roughly 10,000,000 people had health insurance, and those that did had insurance that doesn't resemble most current policies at all. The policies were for catastrophic illnesses, not for doctor visits, immunizations, or prescriptions. As more companies started offering insurance and wages were artificially capped, companies had to provide better and better benefits to distance themselves from the others. This started the irrational thinking that insurance companies should pay for simple doctors visits. Prior to this, people paid the doctor cash and didn't have to pay a middle man.

 

The second way government has increased the cost of medical care was when the worst Texan to ever hold office (LBJ), signed medicare and medicaid into law. Medicare does not pay a fair reimbursement for procedures. This is why only 37% of Texas doctors accept medicare, a trend which can be seen across the country. Medicaid is even worse. In an attempt to make up for the shortfalls caused by the government not paying "it's" fair share, doctors and hospitals inflate their costs to try to make up the difference. This caused our premiums to go up.

 

The third reason the government is to blame for the high cost of health care is it's failure to do something it is actually mandated to do (unlike capping wages, or providing health care), that is to protect our borders. The strain illegal aliens add to our health care system can not be over looked, particularly in border states.

 

Another thing that adds to the cost of health care is cost of litigation or the fear of litigation. It has been estimated that up to 10% of health care cost are a result this. I'm not, nor have I ever been for capping real damages, but capping punitive damages or possibly giving punitive damages to an indigent fund instead of making it a pay day for plaintiffs and their lawyers could help. Again I'm not sure if I'm for this or not.

[detlef]

That's a FAR cry from forcing businesses into some form of insurance or getting between the Dr/patient relationship and rationing care.

Well somebody needs to freaking start rationing it because the best way to make this thing cheaper is for people to stop running to the doc every time they have the sniffles.

 

We're a country addicted to meds and addicted to having someone tell them it's going to be OK. We can't just assume that the industry profiting from everyone's inclination to act like idiots is going to police itself.

[Ursa Majoris]

Medicare does not pay a fair reimbursement for procedures. This is why only 37% of Texas doctors accept medicare, a trend which can be seen across the country. Medicaid is even worse. In an attempt to make up for the shortfalls caused by the government not paying "it's" fair share, doctors and hospitals inflate their costs to try to make up the difference. This caused our premiums to go up.

It could equally be argued that Medicare DOES pay a fair rate and it is the others that pay a bloated cost, could it not? I've seen hospital bills - some of the numbers are beyond ridiculous even if the entire population of Mexico was being treated for free.

[Perchoutofwater]

Isnt that EXACTLY what insurance agents do right now? Tell you what will be covered, who you can go to, and what procedures are covered/not covered?

 

Hell, the insurance agents even tell you what DOCTOR you can go to . . . if you want any of it covered under the large premiums you pay every month . . .

 

Absolutely it is what insurance agents do. Guess what, I can choose my insurance agent right now. Read page 16 of the House Bill.

[Perchoutofwater]

Well somebody needs to freaking start rationing it because the best way to make this thing cheaper is for people to stop running to the doc every time they have the sniffles.

 

We're a country addicted to meds and addicted to having someone tell them it's going to be OK. We can't just assume that the industry profiting from everyone's inclination to act like idiots is going to police itself.

 

The only person that should ration it is the individual. I agree with everything else you have written. Maybe we could start having some catastrophic medical plans that pick up everything beyond a set point, have that point set very high. Then let people go back to paying for their doctor's visits themselves.

[Perchoutofwater]

It could equally be argued that Medicare DOES pay a fair rate and it is the others that pay a bloated cost, could it not? I've seen hospital bills - some of the numbers are beyond ridiculous even if the entire population of Mexico was being treated for free.

 

Ursa you can argue anything, but that doesn't make it true. If they were paying a fare rate, doctors wouldn't be turning them away?

[detlef]

The only person that should ration it is the individual. I agree with everything else you have written. Maybe we could start having some catastrophic medical plans that pick up everything beyond a set point, have that point set very high. Then let people go back to paying for their doctor's visits themselves.

Isn't that essentially a HSA? That's what my wife and I have. The problem is, like so many other things that need to get fixed, we're not prepared to suffer the consequences of truly fixing them. In this case, pulling the rug out on a ton of people who have allowed themselves to become hyper dependent on over-using medicine and doctors.

 

Nobody wants to be the guy who let that happen on his watch.

 

I can tell you one thing, I'm pretty damned glad I'm not the one put in charge of fixing this mess.

[westvirginia]

Isnt that EXACTLY what insurance agents do right now? Tell you what will be covered, who you can go to, and what procedures are covered/not covered?

 

Hell, the insurance agents even tell you what DOCTOR you can go to . . . if you want any of it covered under the large premiums you pay every month . . .

 

But I have a choice. In the UK or Canada you don't, unless you go outside the system. I don't want to step down the path where the government controls the producers, where you have to wait several months for an MRI or some other simple test.