Thread: Health Insurance in the U.S.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

one of the reasons Bayh set up the Blue Dog Senate caucus to block Obama's agenda.

But I would say, another reason is that it is not a good idea and will be a drag on the people of the USA.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Bayh is going to be one of the biggest obstacles to health care reform in the Senate.

Good for him as it will fuck the American citizenry to death.

What's most disturbing about the current health care reform proposals is that irresponsible people are put in the same risk pool as everyone else. Why must I subsidize fat slobs who can't push away from the table or people who choose to smoke cigarettes or get drunk?

If people were surcharged an extra $50/pound on their annual premium for every pound that they were overweight (this approximates their real cost to the system), half of the USA would be out jogging tomorrow. It would be a lot more fair and encourage behavioral changes that would drive the overall cost of any government program down drastically.

"Obese Americans spend about $1,429 more on health care each year than the roughly $3,400 spent by normal-weight Americans." (from a 2006 study in today's New York Times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/he...28obesity.html

All it is going to be is another HMO and this one ran and ruled by the US GOVT. That is not their business nor their primary purpose and they will fuck it up and make it so expensive that it will not work and to damn many people will be left out in the cold.
There is not that many people that are dissatisfied with what they have now as health care is free if you need it and can not pay.
That Tri-Lateral nigger just wants to be KING of the world. but first he has to subdue the USA.

Yeah, well, y'all ready for...

Here's the latest from Barack HQ:

You've probably seen the headlines: Opponents of change are doing everything they can to delay health insurance reform. As a Republican strategy memo concluded, "If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it."

They're betting that as time goes by, our energy will flag, our movement will weaken, and they'll ultimately be able to block any change.

But they just don't get it -- thanks to the regular Americans who are reaching out in neighborhoods nationwide, our movement is expanding every day. In fact, over the weekend, we surpassed our big goal of 1 million people taking action for health insurance reform. And with your help, we'll keep growing and prove that our opponents' strategy of "delay, delay, delay" simply won't work.

So I want to ask you for something unusual: Can you chip in $1 each day until we pass real health insurance reform? A huge response will show the insurance companies and their allies in Congress that their delay tactics will only make our movement stronger.

5555555555555 C'mon, send a dollar a day! WTF, is he still campaigning? Don't people decide and call their congressman to say yea or nay? This kind of crap is an affront to elected leaders -- in BO's view, they aren't good enough to represent their electorate?
And it ain't the Republicans he has to worry about; it's the Blue Dog dems who are fiscally responsible and realise this bill, in its current forms, is a disaster.

PS, click on the "can you chip in" line for the linkie.

Just to be clear, Conrad is essentially saying that there are Democrats, including presumably him, who will let the GOP filibuster any bill that contains a public option. Which is really just the same thing as saying they'll filibuster the public option, the feature Obama publicly lobbied for yesterday.

snip

I'm really having a hard time processing the notion that the American people gave Democrats control of the House and the Senate in 2006, then gave them even larger majorities two years later while installing a Democrat in the White House -- just so we could get Willard's health care plan.


Pity,……….maybe no public option after all

^ Tks for the vid. Waiting to see how it plays out.

^Yeah me too,…………but it seems it will be a while longer before there will be any real results

This just in:

Newsmax.com - House Blue Dogs Strike Healthcare Deal

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Tks for the vid.

I hope more people will take the time to watch the video in the link I provided. I have repeatedly read on TD that some people believe all Americans have health care if they want/need it.

Being able to see a doctor (in an emergency room/situation) when you’re knocking on deaths door Is Not Health Care!

SL, many people in Canada cannot get a GP -- nobody takes new patients unlss they have an illness the doc is researching. They can go to walk-in clinics, but they cannot get a general checkup. A physician will treat them for a specific complaint, but if they need a specialist, good luck. Many folks here also go to ER for minor complaints, stuffing up the facility. I am lucky we have a family doc of many years who accepted me as a patient. I see him once a year for a physical and a scolding for smoking.

this just in: newsmax.com is a joke.

btw, who doesn't think obama will get universal health care passed this fall?

i'm very confident that he will.

don't forget that reconciliation is always in his back pocket....and he'll use it if he has to.

ELDERLY LEAD OPPOSITION ON OBAMA HEALTHCARE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on July 28, 2009
In 1993-94, when the Clintons tried to pass healthcare reform, the opposition to their proposals was concentrated among middle-aged voters, galvanized by the "Harry and Louise" ads. But opposition to the Obama proposals centers among the elderly, who suspect that it will mean a sharp curtailment of their medical care.
The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll of July 21-24 found that voters over 65 opposed the Obama plan by 35-47. They oppose a government-run insurance plan to compete with private plans by 31-56 and believe that the Obama plan will "cost me money" rather than "save me money" by 57-20! Only 24 percent of the elderly feel that the Obama plan will lead to better healthcare for "you and your family," while 45 percent believe the quality of care will be worse.
By 61-29, elderly voters reject the idea that "it is possible to have major healthcare reform without increasing the budget deficit. They also say, by 65-29, that it is impossible to have it without raising taxes. Three-quarters expect their personal taxes to go up if the plan passes.
Oddly, for a population that now gets its health services through government-run Medicare, they would rather be in a privately run system than one managed by the government, by 67-7.
Most resistant to change, the elderly voters cite fears that they "will have to change existing healthcare arrangements" as the greatest reason to oppose the Obama plan.
The political impact of these findings is enormous. Instead of facing an inchoate unease about Obama's proposals, Democrats who vote for them are likely to find themselves running into the teeth of strong, concentrated elderly opposition. Fears of rationing and the denial of care are stoking opposition to a fever pitch among the elderly. So widespread is the dissatisfaction with the Obama plan that it may drive the elderly into Republican ranks as surely as Bush's Social Security reforms alienated then in 2005 and drove them into the arms of Democrats.
The factors that animate elderly opposition to the Obama plan are not generally those under discussion in Washington. The polling shows that the elderly are not as fixated on macro issues like the deficit or what taxes must be raised to pay for the program as they are on very specific personal concerns about their continued access to quality medical care. Seniors are less interested in whether there will be a government insurance option than whether they will face rationing of care.
Open-ended questions on a number of surveys find the elderly very worried that they will not be able to get quality-of-life treatments, such as hip or knee replacements, under the Obama program. Others worry that the program will encourage them to give up when facing serious illness and enter hospices to minimize costs to the government.
The Clintons lost the elections of 1994 primarily because of the tax increases the Democratic Congress passed. Healthcare reform was not nearly as important in their defeat as the tax hikes. But in the elections of 2010, the elderly are likely to respond harshly to the healthcare reforms and, increasingly, may vote Republican as a result.
For his part, Obama faces a tough dilemma. The more he enlists his personal popularity in his campaign for healthcare reform, the more his job approval ratings will drop -- as they have recently. And the lower these ratings go, the less likely he is to be able to persuade his party to pass his healthcare reforms.
These survey results will come as no surprise to congressmen and senators who go home in August and take soundings in their districts. The opposition of their elderly constituents to the plans making their way through Congress will be obvious. And when they feel the heat, they will, hopefully, see the light.

Originally Posted by raycarey

btw, who doesn't think obama will get universal health care passed this fall?

i'm very confident that he will.

I wish I had your faith. I hope you are right,….but from I have been reading it seems a bit disappointing (Damn Bluedogs). Maybe the progressives will be able to pressure everyone enough to get something signed that will benefit (most and not a few) Americans.

There are 178 Republicans in the House. A House majority is 218. If all of the Republicans agree to vote against something, as they indicate they will on health care, then any 40 Democrats banding together can control the passage of a bill (218 - 178 = 40).


Stated another way: if 40 Democrats in the House say they will not vote for any health care bill that does not have a strong public plan, then they have the same power that a Ben Nelson or an Evan Bayh has had in the Senate to determine the outcome--when every vote was needed to pass something. Every commitment we get in excess of that 40 makes the commitment even more powerful.

Link: http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/07/29/progressive-revolt-in-the-house-on-health-care-tell-blue-dogs-to-get-stuffed/


And then this:


So, not only does Enzi expect Baucus to cave by producing a GOP bill, he wants everyone else to cave -- up to and including Obama. That's pretty ballsy. Enzi has been empowered to think he controls the whole process.

Democratic Senators Max Baucus and Kent Conrad have really screwed this up. They have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but have managed to cede power to the GOP.


Link: http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/there-is-no-senate-health-care-deal-and.html

I sure the fuck hope they do not get a pass on that healthcare,
Just what the country needs.
Another HMO only this one completely unafordable and ran by a darkie in the WH.

Well the Liberals are getting pissed off, but thats probably comforting to the fiscally conservative-

But the concessions Waxman made to the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats infuriated House liberals. They denounced the proposed new structure of the government-run insurance option, which was originally designed to be based on Medicare rates. The new structure says rates would be negotiated with providers as occurs now with private companies, which could result in more expensive care.
"This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards," 57 Progressive Caucus members said in a letter to House leaders Thursday. "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable."
Liberals threatened to vote against the bill if it comes to the floor without a stronger public plan. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., an Energy and Commerce member, said they probably had enough votes to block the Blue Dog deal in committee.
Some details of the deal remained murky. As part of the agreement the Blue Dogs are insisting they won't vote for a bill that costs more than $1 trillion over 10 years, but that would require Democrats to make more cuts or raise more money. It wasn't clear how much, or how it would be accomplished.

Also-
Highlighting the frenetic activity the overhaul has spurred in Washington, health interests have reported spending $262 million lobbying in the first six months of 2009, more than any other portion of the economy, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The Associated Press: Health bill inches forward in House

I certainly think the US needs a decent national healthcare system, and it was probably Obamas biggest campaign promise. Otoh can understand concerns over the cost, given the financial mess right now.

Betsy McCaughey, one of the very few who have read the entire ObamaCare bill, details a few of the Nazi-like horrors BO wants to inflict on Americans:

"Nazi-like horrors"

That's more offensive than you obviously realise - and not because of the association with Obama (that's just sad and pathetic really).

There's an entire generation of men who fought the Nazis and saw firsthand the horrors who would probably feel sorrow and anger that such flippant and trite comparisons are being made purely to score cheap points in a childish political game. I wonder what a surivour of Auschwitz would have to say about a health-care plan being compared to Nazi atrocities.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Well, me old boy fought the Japs. Was held captive by them little yellow buggers for 48 months after going thru the Bataan Death March. Same as those Nazis.

Really?? Huh, I would've thought you'd have known better then.

Both my Grandfathers fought in WW2. They'd be disgusted in the sort of garbage that's so readily bandied about these days. At all these internet-tough-guys that talk a good fight.

check out page 425: "Counseling sessions" mandated for elderly to pressure them to DIE

Bollocks. I'll put any money you like that you've just - knowingly or otherwise - misrepresented those counselling sessions.

Do you trust you cut 'n pastes enough to put your money where your mouth is Booners?

“If you want to know how the proposed overhaul of the US healthcare system may play out nationally, talk to top executives at the biggest medical and life sciences companies in Massachusetts. As the heads of leading hospitals, insurers, and biotechnology companies, they have dealt with the complexities of near-universal healthcare since 2006, when Massachusetts became the first state to mandate insurance coverage. That gives them a unique perspective on the national effort to overhaul healthcare. As the debate in Washington heats up, local executives warn that two goals of the Obama administration — expanding insurance coverage and controlling spending — may prove incompatible. And as Massachusetts strains to deal with the increasing costs of its successful healthcare program, they raise questions about who will pay for the projected $1 trillion cost on the federal level."
Mass. executives wary of healthcare overhaul’s cost - The Boston Globe

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Do you trust you cut 'n pastes enough to put your money where your mouth is Booners?

Too much evidence out there in the public domain to ignore. Why do you suppose he's trying to rush this piece of crap thru Congress? BO and his supporters argue that when healthcare has been absorbed by Big Government, costs can be kept down by preventing innovation. Basically, they are blowing smoke up yer ass:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Do you trust you cut 'n pastes enough to put your money where your mouth is Booners?

Too much evidence out there in the public domain to ignore. Why do you suppose he's trying to rush this piece of crap thru Congress? BO and his supporters argue that when healthcare has been absorbed by Big Government, costs can be kept down by preventing innovation. Basically, they are blowing smoke up yer ass:

So that's a "no" then, thought as much.

I'd feel bad taking money from you anyways, you might need it if the day ever comes that you're ill and the present US healthcare system bankrupts you.

Still for those that are interested in the actual truth rather than just unthinkingly cut 'n pasting and spreading verbatim lies, here's pg425 of the Health Care Bill:

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
(a) MEDICARE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
(A) in subsection (s)(2)—
(i) by striking "and" at the end of subparagraph (DD);
(ii) by adding "and" at the end of subparagraph (EE); and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

"(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));"; and (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"Advance Care Planning Consultation

"(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

"(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

"(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

"(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

"(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State lega lservice organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

"(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

"(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—

"(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

"(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

"(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a healthcare proxy).

Health Care Bill Page 425 - The Truth Nothing in there at all that mandates advocating/euthanasia suicide for the elderly. A load of hysteria over nothing, really shows how desperate the 'right' have become these days all this desperate clutching at straws.

^
Not to worry...it still won't pass. America ain't as ready for socialized medicine as you may wish for. I won't be taking advantage of any of that Medicare etc anyhow as I'll be living out the 'golden years' in Thailand...