Healthcare Debate

[Titanic]

Just wanted to see Obama thinking on his toes, seeing just how well he knows and can speak on the issues, just see how well he does without the teleprompter. I see why he has held fewer conferences than Bush. He's such a great speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpM_Pv43 ... re=related

Wow, a 3-4 second clip continuously played back to back....You've proved so much.

I quite enjoyed it, although its killed my whole day. Still can't see the Republicans voting with the bill or any bipartisan negotiation as its against their base and funders, and their step by step arguament just never made any sense to me. All of them know all the problems, theres no need to go back to square 1, they just need to make the changes to the basics of the bills that are already out there.

it's a reflection of what i heard on the radio. kind of funny too.

Do you know whats funnier? An unedited interview with George Bush.

[Phatscotty]

Just wanted to see Obama thinking on his toes, seeing just how well he knows and can speak on the issues, just see how well he does without the teleprompter. I see why he has held fewer conferences than Bush. He's such a great speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpM_Pv43 ... re=related

Wow, a 3-4 second clip continuously played back to back....You've proved so much.

I quite enjoyed it, although its killed my whole day. Still can't see the Republicans voting with the bill or any bipartisan negotiation as its against their base and funders, and their step by step arguament just never made any sense to me. All of them know all the problems, theres no need to go back to square 1, they just need to make the changes to the basics of the bills that are already out there.

it's a reflection of what i heard on the radio. kind of funny too.

Do you know whats funnier? An unedited interview with George Bush.

fascinating argument. I've not heard it before. what does your correct point accomplish? that the guy from ten years ago was a dipshit? yeah, and? what does that prove about the health care discussion today? ? ?? ?????


none of this changes the fact that today Obama was studdering and stammering all over the place, and did not sound like he knew what he was talking about. If you did not notice this, you are in denial.

I refuse to discuss this further with a person who is in blind denial of what just happened.

Good Day

[Phatscotty]

Back on topic, I am half done with the summit. Every Democrat so far has repeated the worst possible story they could find, exploited the shit out of the person, and circled it to somehow prove that is how the entire country is. I will not point out lies by pelosi that greekdog pointed out.

On the other hand, Lamar Alexander shot off 6-7 realistic ideas, other republicans such as my boy Kline from MN, keeping on point about bringing down the price of the cost, the same way businesses do. Democrats better start offering at least something ...

[Night Strike]

I didn't listen to any of the live feed nor have I read/watched any substantial reports/commentary. I did hear on Mark Levin's show on my way home that the Republicans has 110 minutes of speaking, Obama had 119 minutes, and the Democrats had approximately 115 minutes. That doesn't sound balanced to me. Also doesn't seem like a sincere expression when the plan announced Monday says that they're going to use reconciliation unless the Republicans agree to their plan (to which they are philosophically opposed). I also believe the Democrats chose the participants of the forum because the several Republican doctors in Congress were not invited.

EDIT: I just heard Senator Coburn was at the debate, but I don't know if any of the other Republican doctors were. My mistake previously. I still think Republicans should have sent all their elected doctors, their leadership, and nobody else.

[PLAYER57832]

Another thing... President Obama just said it and other Democrats have said it... more and more people are on government plans lately because "employers and health insurers are dropping people." I wonder why... could it be because PEOPLE ARE GETTING LAID OFF FROM THEIR FUCKING JOBS?!?! I really hate the rhetoric. Stop with the rhetoric. Please.

This is both true and untrue... as are both the statements that the bill will increase health care costs and decrease it. (both comments based on the congressional study).

In fact, yes, people are losing jobs. However, a couple of the larger insurance companies have just been brought to court for dropping too many people. Also, several have just increased rates for several states by 39% and has "cooincidentally" found ways to eliminate many people from coverage.

As for the costs, the healthcare bill proposed will reduce cost of coverage for many people. It will increase costs for a few people, particularly some small business owners, BUT they will get much, much better coverage for that cost so that most projections show while they will pay more for insurance, their overall healthcare will generally go down. In addition, many people will be getting assistance to purchase those plans.

[thegreekdog]

The Republicans indicated their ideas (mostly Mr. Alexander and Mr. Ryan). Ryan also indicated some of the misconceptions being tossed around by the Democrats regarding what their healthcare plans actually do, especially with respect to what the president says will happen regarding saving money versus what the CBO has said regarding saving money. I'm going to try to read the transcript today, but since I'm working from home we'll see how that works out.

That being said, most Republicans were just politicking

The Democrats with the exception of the president and probably the vice-president were politicking as well. I had hoped the president would stop that nonsense and I think he tried to at the beginning, but it was clear these people had talking points they wanted to read. Kind of disappointing for the most part, with some highlights by Alexander, Ryan, and the president. I'm not sure why I got my hopes up.

[PLAYER57832]

The Republicans indicated their ideas (mostly Mr. Alexander and Mr. Ryan). Ryan also indicated some of the misconceptions being tossed around by the Democrats regarding what their healthcare plans actually do, especially with respect to what the president says will happen regarding saving money versus what the CBO has said regarding saving money. I'm going to try to read the transcript today, but since I'm working from home we'll see how that works out.

In fact, the Republicans were no more correct (or wrong) than the Democrats on that. Neither was lying, but neither told the whole and complete truth.

Bottom line, The Democrats plan may not decrease insurance costs for everyone (for many they will, but for some insurance will increase), but should decrease overall healthcare costs for almost all people, particularly in the long run. HOWEVER, one thing neither wishes to address is that the real reason health care costs are skyrocketing is largely because we GET so much more.

BUT, one thing the Democrats said over and over, about which almost all economists agree is that you cannot take a "step by step" approach and "solve" part of the problem, but not the whole thing. If, for example you create high risk pools, then all that does is boost up the rates for those people. IF you require insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions, then people who are young and healthy will not enroll, meaning that the costs for those who do will skyrocket through the roof. AND, if you require people to buy insurance, then you have to provide help for those who might otherwise not have the money for it.

By trying to go "piecemeal", the Republicans are really and truly making a political move to destroy the whole process... and what angers me is I fully believe they know it, but are more interested in gaining their personnal political ground than truly serving the people of this country.

The Democrats with the exception of the president and probably the vice-president were politicking as well. I had hoped the president would stop that nonsense and I think he tried to at the beginning, but it was clear these people had talking points they wanted to read. Kind of disappointing for the most part, with some highlights by Alexander, Ryan, and the president. I'm not sure why I got my hopes up.

I agree it was dissapointing. Sometimes I feel like one side is claiming the sky is tourquose and the other is claiming its greenish blue, sometimes I feel llike one is claiming the sky is yellow and the other is claiming its purple. If they cannot even agree on their "facts"... we are just plain lost.

[tzor]

By trying to go "piecemeal", the Republicans are really and truly making a political move to destroy the whole process... and what angers me is I fully believe they know it, but are more interested in gaining their personnal political ground than truly serving the people of this country.

I will disagree, I think they are on to a greater truth than even they want to admit. The Democrats had a majority in Congress and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2009 and even then they could not get the everything in one package in. Why? Because when something is so large, someone is going to object to something. They could have easily broken up the legislation and gotten a large amount of it passed in 2009. The problem is that in 2009 healthcare was never the issue. Rather it was a number of issues that didn't even have a majority support among the Democrats and the only way (they thought) of getting it passed was to load up the train so much that no Democrat would object to the items that did not have complete support. That failed miserably, just like the Cap and Trade failed miserably.

It is easy to parry the large battering ram heading towards you; the death of a thousand cuts from millions of darts is another matter.

If you take an animal and try to drop him into boiling water he will try to get out. If you raise the water slowly enough, you have dinner.

[Titanic]

By trying to go "piecemeal", the Republicans are really and truly making a political move to destroy the whole process... and what angers me is I fully believe they know it, but are more interested in gaining their personnal political ground than truly serving the people of this country.

I will disagree, I think they are on to a greater truth than even they want to admit. The Democrats had a majority in Congress and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2009 and even then they could not get the everything in one package in. Why? Because when something is so large, someone is going to object to something. They could have easily broken up the legislation and gotten a large amount of it passed in 2009. The problem is that in 2009 healthcare was never the issue. Rather it was a number of issues that didn't even have a majority support among the Democrats and the only way (they thought) of getting it passed was to load up the train so much that no Democrat would object to the items that did not have complete support. That failed miserably, just like the Cap and Trade failed miserably.

It is easy to parry the large battering ram heading towards you; the death of a thousand cuts from millions of darts is another matter.

If you take an animal and try to drop him into boiling water he will try to get out. If you raise the water slowly enough, you have dinner.

Who cares about food, give a saying that actually remotely relevant to the topic.

The reason that the healthcare and cap and trade couldn't be passed by the Democrats was not because it was too large. Its's because the Democrats refused to use reconciliation before so the conservative and corporatist democrats did everything they could to weaken the bill whilst taking lobbyist money and backing. Both of these bills would fundamentally improve the US economy in the long term but are an inconvenience to certain businesses in the short term, hence the sellout democrats had no reason to pass it. It took a heck of a lot of time, pressure and watering down to get the Xmas Eve senate bill through.

Also, healthcare was a major issue in 2009. On election day somewhere around 15% of people said healthcare was their #1 issue when choosing who to vote for (with the economy in the 60's), so after the stimulus bill, bailouts, and other economic measures healthcare was always going to come up. Even now over 20% rate healthcare as the most important issue for the government atm so it is a very viable policy to be trying to implement.

[Phatscotty]

By trying to go "piecemeal", the Republicans are really and truly making a political move to destroy the whole process... and what angers me is I fully believe they know it, but are more interested in gaining their personnal political ground than truly serving the people of this country.

I will disagree, I think they are on to a greater truth than even they want to admit. The Democrats had a majority in Congress and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2009 and even then they could not get the everything in one package in. Why? Because when something is so large, someone is going to object to something. They could have easily broken up the legislation and gotten a large amount of it passed in 2009. The problem is that in 2009 healthcare was never the issue. Rather it was a number of issues that didn't even have a majority support among the Democrats and the only way (they thought) of getting it passed was to load up the train so much that no Democrat would object to the items that did not have complete support. That failed miserably, just like the Cap and Trade failed miserably.

It is easy to parry the large battering ram heading towards you; the death of a thousand cuts from millions of darts is another matter.

If you take an animal and try to drop him into boiling water he will try to get out. If you raise the water slowly enough, you have dinner.

Who cares about food, give a saying that actually remotely relevant to the topic.

The reason that the healthcare and cap and trade couldn't be passed by the Democrats was not because it was too large. Its's because the Democrats refused to use reconciliation before so the conservative and corporatist democrats did everything they could to weaken the bill whilst taking lobbyist money and backing. Both of these bills would fundamentally improve the US economy in the long term but are an inconvenience to certain businesses in the short term, hence the sellout democrats had no reason to pass it. It took a heck of a lot of time, pressure and watering down to get the Xmas Eve senate bill through.

Also, healthcare was a major issue in 2009. On election day somewhere around 15% of people said healthcare was their #1 issue when choosing who to vote for (with the economy in the 60's), so after the stimulus bill, bailouts, and other economic measures healthcare was always going to come up. Even now over 20% rate healthcare as the most important issue for the government atm so it is a very viable policy to be trying to implement.

Health Care, no problem, throw it right on top.



No worries.

[jbrettlip]

i believe th edems can give 30 million people free healthcare with it saving money and not causing a shortage in supply. Afterall, they have Barrack the Magic Negro on their side.

(And no that isn't racist).

[Titanic]

Health Care, no problem, throw it right on top.



No worries.

Healthcare will reduce the deficit in the next 10 years, and reduce it by a considerable amount every year after that. You are aware that a huge portion of the healthcare spending in the USA (from memory, around 35%) is already carried out by the government? The healthcare bill currently passed in house and senate actually reduce the deficit and help out the USA on a course towards a stable budget. The status quo will only exponentially increase the federal deficit with healthcare costs the #1 provider in the long term of the deficit.

[thegreekdog]

Look, Representative Paul Ryan addressed this and simply put, the current healthcare plans don't actually reduce the deficit; they increase it substantially. The senate plan is full of smoke and mirrors with respect to the budget.

Here are Ryan's thoughts:

Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff. Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You're right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation. Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states' budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for it. Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said -- and I totally agree with this -- I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit. And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary, I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have. Now, let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day -- very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I say that?

Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3 trillion.
It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits. It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets. The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does -- it treats Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program. Now, when you take a look at what this does, is, according to the chief actuary of Medicare, he's saying as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who are on -- who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting. And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10- year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit. And I think, probably, the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don't think we should cut doctors 21 percent next year. We've stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.

We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit, that bill was -- that provision was taken out, and it's been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn't add up.

And so let's just -- I'll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up? Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.

And so, when you take a look at this, it's really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.

And we've been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it's basically this. We don't think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference. Now, we've offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It's got to get fixed. It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting our government. It's hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.

But we don't think that this is the answer to the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.

Now, I'll just simply say this. And I respectfully disagree with the vice president about what the American people are or are not saying or whether we're qualified to speak on their behalf. So...

(LAUGHTER)

... we are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you're not listening to them.

So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean- sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health care costs and not raise them. And that's basically the point.

In reply, the president states "There are some strong disagreements on the numbers here, Paul, and you know, but I don't want to get too bogged down in..." and then he changes the subject.

[PLAYER57832]

He changes the subject because it has been discussed and discussed and discussed.

The truth is that healthcare will go up.. period. It will go up probably until we reach immortality .. and perhaps even then. The issue is whether we can control and reduce the INCREASE in health care.

The bottom line is that either we cover everybody or we have a system where healthy people exclude themselves and only sick people take insurance. It simply cannot be done peicemeal. Our current system is proof of that.

Then, after that, we can look at many ways to reduce costs... but not reduce in the sense that the cost tommorrow will be lower, reduce in the sense that instead of (just to pick out meaningless numbers for illustration) say, tripling costs, they might "only" double.

Regardless, the current system is the one that has driven costs up through the roof. Right now, most health care IS ALREADY heavily governmetn subsidized. Add in research and that number goes through the roof.

So, the two biggest arguments Republicans use are just fundamentally false. Healthcare research is ALREADY mostly government sponsored, not private. AND limits are already heavily applied. Except, instead of being based upon publically availalbe studies of effectiveness, they are based on secret analysis by insurance companies. Companies that see no problem with simply denying people cures that exist if it will help them make more money.

[thegreekdog]

Grrr... sometimes Player you get me very angry. I think it has to do with you changing the topic on me. For example, I typed a post about the apparent budget neutrality of the Senate bill and then you say "no" and then type a whole post that has nothing to do with budget neutrality.

Player, the point is that President Obama said that his healthcare plan, which is like the Senate plan, will not increase the budget deficit. HE... IS... LYING... That was the point.

To address your comments that have nothing to do with whether the plan is budget neutral:

So, the Republicans acknowledge there are problems and that they need to be fixed. They want to start anew because they want to try to make the plan as budget neutral as possible. Presumably, from all he's said, the president wants to make the plan as budget neutral as possible. So, why not start over? We don't have to do it piecemeal.

See, here's the thing - you've assumed that the only way to do this is to use the Senate plan, the House plan, or the president's plan. You haven't even acknowledged that there are other plans. That was the point of the healthcare summit last week; there are Republican plans and Republican ideas that do not have to be done piecemeal and try to solve all of the problems with the current healthcare system.

[PLAYER57832]

Grrr... sometimes Player you get me very angry. I think it has to do with you changing the topic on me. For example, I typed a post about the apparent budget neutrality of the Senate bill and then you say "no" and then type a whole post that has nothing to do with budget neutrality.

Player, the point is that President Obama said that his healthcare plan, which is like the Senate plan, will not increase the budget deficit. HE... IS... LYING... That was the point.

Except, I already said, as pointed out by "fact checkers", it was not a lie... or rather, each were equally lies and equally truth.

If you look at the short term, yes some people may well see increases in premiums. HOWEVER, even with those increases, the overall cost of healthcare, particularly once you go past the immediate, will go down. Most people will actually see decreases in premiums. Some small business owners,etc may see them go up, BUT they will get far more coverage. The neet result is that the overall healthcare bills they pay will go down, in time. There is still a very slight exception. People who are lucky enough to never get sick, never need any kind of advanced care may truly see thier entire healthcare bill go up. However, very, very, very few people stay healthy their entire lives. If you expand that to people who have an entire family of completely healthy people and the numbers are too small to even really count. Further, I would say they should consider themselve lucky, not bemoan that they did not "get their money's worth"... particularly since increased emphasis on prevention, possible with universal coverage, is almost certain to be part of why they have better health.

To address your comments that have nothing to do with whether the plan is budget neutral:

So, the Republicans acknowledge there are problems and that they need to be fixed. They want to start anew because they want to try to make the plan as budget neutral as possible. Presumably, from all he's said, the president wants to make the plan as budget neutral as possible. So, why not start over? We don't have to do it piecemeal.

I agree, but what most Republicans suggest is not a comprehensive, cover everybody plan. Unless everybody is covered, the plan will be too costly.

See, here's the thing - you've assumed that the only way to do this is to use the Senate plan, the House plan, or the president's plan. You haven't even acknowledged that there are other plans. That was the point of the healthcare summit last week; there are Republican plans and Republican ideas that do not have to be done piecemeal and try to solve all of the problems with the current healthcare system.

Except, they really did not present a full and comprehensive plan that would fix things. Hate to cop out at this point, but my kids are just arriving, so I gotta go. Will take it up later.

[jbrettlip]

You can not give free healthcare (or subsidies to buy healthcare) to 30 million people for less money than NOT giving them it. It is stupid to think this saves money in anyway shape or form. If economics worked like this, we should give free gas to everyone, and thus the middle east would go bankrupt after the resulting drop in the price of oil. To say this is deficit neutral or reduces the deficit is plain wrong. Every entitlement is on the verge of bankruptcy whether it is a pension, social security or Medicare. They are flawed business models because they have no cap on payouts. this is another one, that if passes will be talked about as the death of our country. Look at Europe right now. It is slowly falling apart. And you can't blame Bush for that.

By the way, wasn't Medicare projected to not cost very much either.....

[HapSmo19]

PLAYER57832 is a troll.

[PLAYER57832]

You can not give free healthcare (or subsidies to buy healthcare) to 30 million people for less money than NOT giving them it. It is stupid to think this saves money in anyway shape or form. If economics worked like this, we should give free gas to everyone, and thus the middle east would go bankrupt after the resulting drop in the price of oil. To say this is deficit neutral or reduces the deficit is plain wrong. Every entitlement is on the verge of bankruptcy whether it is a pension, social security or Medicare. They are flawed business models because they have no cap on payouts. this is another one, that if passes will be talked about as the death of our country. Look at Europe right now. It is slowly falling apart. And you can't blame Bush for that.

By the way, wasn't Medicare projected to not cost very much either.....

#1, This is not about FREE HEALTHCARE, not unless you factor in the fact that basically everyone who would get free healthcare is ALREADY GETTING IT. This is about PAID healthcare at a price less than what insurance companies currently believe they need to provide.

#2 IF, and only IF everyone is covered (or very nearly everyone), it will be less overall, because instead of the insurance companies gleefully insuring those who are relatively healthy (not 100% healthy, but largely) and leaving the rest to either fend for themselves (which, really means give up every asset they have until they are left destitute and therefore on the public system) OR on the CURRENT PUBLIC SYSTEM for the destitute, everyone will be insured and the costs will balance out far more than they do now. The proof is in every other healthcare system in the WORLD. Not sure why you seem to continue to ignore that evidence, but it is right there.
and please.. don't go on about "research".. again, most research is funded by the government RIGHT NOW, medical research is not a profit system now!

[thegreekdog]

PLAYER57832 is a troll.

No, actually, she's not. She's just arguing against phantoms.

If you don't have something constructive to add, stop posting.

thegreekdog's plan:

(1) Scrap the House bill, scrap the Senate bill.
(2) The Republican and Democrat leaders who know what they're doing (i.e. not John McCain, not Nancy Pelosi) meet with the president and his advisors behind closed doors. They discuss what the best way to (a) make sure everyone in the US has insurance and (b) keep government (i.e. taxpayer) costs low.
(3) The parties come to an agreement and put a plan in place based on the meeting.

This won't happen, but it is what should happen.

Regarding the funding for this... it can be budget neutral if we raise taxes more than what is currently in the plan and scrap Medicare and Medicaid. The problem is that the current Senate plan is raising taxes for 10 years and cutting Medicare for 10 years while only paying for 6 years of the current plan; so 4 years of the plan (the last 4 years, when President Obama will no longer be president) would be unfunded in theory. Plus, they're taking money from social security. That's a big no when they can't even make social security payments now, and that problem is only going to get worse.

So, they need to figure out what to do. They are going to need to raise taxes significantly, in my opinion, and scrap Medicare and Medicaid to make this thing work. And they need to figure out how to keep ancillary costs to the government down (for example, any regulatory bodies that come out of a healthcare bill).

[PLAYER57832]

See, here's the thing - you've assumed that the only way to do this is to use the Senate plan, the House plan, or the president's plan. You haven't even acknowledged that there are other plans. That was the point of the healthcare summit last week; there are Republican plans and Republican ideas that do not have to be done piecemeal and try to solve all of the problems with the current healthcare system.

I haven't acknowledged other comprehesive plans because they were not really being presented.

Even most recently, what I see is more of a "piecemeal" approach. Maybe I have missed something you have seen, but here is what I see.

#1 torte reform. Good idea, but I would like to see something far more comprehensive. Further, while most people believe that lawsuits are driving up healthcare costs, in truth they represent only about 1% of the cost. My biggest issue is that lawsuits are neither an effective deterrent in this case, nor an effective means of caring for the injured (unlike some other situations). They basically benefit lawyers, a few lucky clients who "hit the lottery" and no one else. Even those who "win the lottery" are not necessarily getting what they often really want, which is the system to be fixed. (granted, money helps care for medical expenses, but it never brings anyone back or replaces a limb that is taken).

#2 interstate plans. Fact is insurance companies want this so they can have a "race to the bottom". For it to work, we would need to nationalize insurance regulation. That is probably a good thing, but that kind of comprehensive agreement is part of what is holding up the bill in Congress. Too many people want their own special interests met. However, even if there could be agreement, it would not change why insurance is so expensive right now or why so many people are not being covered. Policies are going up and people are not covered because insurance companies want huge profits. Can't blame them for that, but I do blame all those who seem to think that should continue without any control.

#3 pool "high risk" people. This is the absolute worst idea floated. Instead of the cost for those policies being meted out amongst the population through general policy increases, they would be socked with huge rates that would have to be subsidized by taxpayers. There would be nothing to stop insurance companies from doing what they do right now.. keep moving the bar as to what is and is not covered. All this would do is concentrate the problem further. The closest analogy I can draw is to flood insurance. It is a travesty. And, the risk there is even spread out some. This would be entirely of people who have much higher chances of requiring heavy treatments.


Those are just some highlights, but the bottom line is twofold. Either we cover everyone or more and more people will be shifted onto the taxpayer driven systems of Medicaid, etc. THAT will drive up not only healthcare costs, but our overall taxes far more than the proposed in creases in health insurance that would result from a comprehensive plan.

Truth is, I don't think either the Senate or house bills go anywhere near enough. And I don't think any of the proposals are really and truly going to reduce costs.. that is they won't result in us paying less today than we did yesterday, but they will result in a slowing down of cost increases AND will result in a far more equitable system... a system based on uniform evidence instead of insurance company board desires for huge profits. (and again, the insurance industry in the US is among the most profitable industry in the world, is absolutely many magnitudes more profitable than any health insurance system in any other country... while NOT reducing costs to healthcare in any real way).

[PLAYER57832]

Fast-posted your response, apparently...

PLAYER57832 is a troll.

No, actually, she's not. She's just arguing against phantoms.

If you don't have something constructive to add, stop posting.

thegreekdog's plan:

(1) Scrap the House bill, scrap the Senate bill.
(2) The Republican and Democrat leaders who know what they're doing (i.e. not John McCain, not Nancy Pelosi) meet with the president and his advisors behind closed doors. They discuss what the best way to (a) make sure everyone in the US has insurance and (b) keep government (i.e. taxpayer) costs low.
(3) The parties come to an agreement and put a plan in place based on the meeting.

LOVE IT!
but sadly, gotta agree with your next point...

This won't happen, but it is what should happen. .

Regarding the funding for this... it can be budget neutral if we raise taxes more than what is currently in the plan and scrap Medicare and Medicaid. The problem is that the current Senate plan is raising taxes for 10 years and cutting Medicare for 10 years while only paying for 6 years of the current plan; so 4 years of the plan (the last 4 years, when President Obama will no longer be president) would be unfunded in theory. Plus, they're taking money from social security. That's a big no when they can't even make social security payments now, and that problem is only going to get worse.

So, they need to figure out what to do. They are going to need to raise taxes significantly, in my opinion, and scrap Medicare and Medicaid to make this thing work. And they need to figure out how to keep ancillary costs to the government down (for example, any regulatory bodies that come out of a healthcare bill).

I agree here, too.

(earth shakes....)

[jbrettlip]

You can not give free healthcare (or subsidies to buy healthcare) to 30 million people for less money than NOT giving them it. It is stupid to think this saves money in anyway shape or form. If economics worked like this, we should give free gas to everyone, and thus the middle east would go bankrupt after the resulting drop in the price of oil. To say this is deficit neutral or reduces the deficit is plain wrong. Every entitlement is on the verge of bankruptcy whether it is a pension, social security or Medicare. They are flawed business models because they have no cap on payouts. this is another one, that if passes will be talked about as the death of our country. Look at Europe right now. It is slowly falling apart. And you can't blame Bush for that.

By the way, wasn't Medicare projected to not cost very much either.....

#1, This is not about FREE HEALTHCARE, not unless you factor in the fact that basically everyone who would get free healthcare is ALREADY GETTING IT. This is about PAID healthcare at a price less than what insurance companies currently believe they need to provide.

#2 IF, and only IF everyone is covered (or very nearly everyone), it will be less overall, because instead of the insurance companies gleefully insuring those who are relatively healthy (not 100% healthy, but largely) and leaving the rest to either fend for themselves (which, really means give up every asset they have until they are left destitute and therefore on the public system) OR on the CURRENT PUBLIC SYSTEM for the destitute, everyone will be insured and the costs will balance out far more than they do now. The proof is in every other healthcare system in the WORLD. Not sure why you seem to continue to ignore that evidence, but it is right there.
and please.. don't go on about "research".. again, most research is funded by the government RIGHT NOW, medical research is not a profit system now!

I keep reading my post, and can't find anything remotely discussing medical research. Are you just arguing for arguments sake?

Every other health care system in the world is failing. Along with their economies. Look at Europe, the poster child for "free" health care. Even with exorbitant tax rates, they are failing to cover costs.

Here's a medical research idea for public health care: you can only get medical service that was developed when you started to sap off the producers in this country. So if a new drug comes out, recipients of free healthcare (paid for by producers taxes) can't have it. That will keep costs down.

[PLAYER57832]

I keep reading my post, and can't find anything remotely discussing medical research. Are you just arguing for arguments sake?

In that post, no. In other posts, yes. Simply heading it off.

Every other health care system in the world is failing. Along with their economies. Look at Europe, the poster child for "free" health care. Even with exorbitant tax rates, they are failing to cover costs.

and yet... they are not, not really.

I truly wish you would actually LOOK at the european systems. I doubt you even know what most of the countries' systems entail. The only type of system to which you have referred with any knowledge is Canada's and that is nothing at all like most countries.

Here's a medical research idea for public health care: you can only get medical service that was developed when you started to sap off the producers in this country. So if a new drug comes out, recipients of free healthcare (paid for by producers taxes) can't have it. That will keep costs down.

Here is an idea... try looking at what actually exists in the world and this country instead of whatever non-source of supposed "information" to which you currently subscribe.

[Night Strike]

Why do people think they have the right for lower health insurance prices when they have an unhealthy life style or genetic predisposition?? The people who will cost the system more must pay more for their coverage. Life isn't fair, so these liberals need to stop trying to make everyone exactly the same and get something realistic on the table.