As Luther opposed Rome, so I oppose "universal healthcare".

[TwinTownBisonFan]

probably never the "only" option... but i think it's the first step toward a system like most of the rest of the industrialized world has, and one that we should have had for 45 years.

If you say so, I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think socialized medicine (even a little bit of it) is going to fix "health care" (which is really giving everyone insurance). Just because other countries do it, doesn't make it the right choice for us. But, I'm one of those who is un-American, so you shouldn't listen to me. I just find it odd that the left is unwilling to look at any other option for health care reform, they just want to slam "a public option" through.

I'm not on the side of the insurance companies, I'm just against the side of the government running health care. I guess, according to Steny Pelosi W. Obama I am not with the government, so I must be against it.

zuh??? if you're referring to the op-ed where congressional leadership called the angry mobs attempting to disrupt legitimate town meetings as anti-american, which was subsequently spun in to the right wing screaming "they called us anti-american" bullshit. but hey, for all their mocking of it, NOBODY does the whole play the victim when you havent been victimized thing quite like the right in this country.

As for the assertion that "the left isn't willing.... blah blah" that's a lot of bunk. The whole notion that people who've spent their lives in politics haven't looked at countless options for how to fix this problem is one of the most absurd side shows of this whole debate. thousands of options have been discussed over the years - and have been given consideration... the problem, as i see it, isn't the "the left ONLY looking at a public option" but rather the right's absolute refusal to compromise on any aspect of reforming health care.

how do people arrive at the idea that a public option (a HUGE compromise) or a single-payer system is the right idea? start with the two big problems in health care
1) access - right now 47 million are uninsured, and several million more are underinsured
2) costs - right now costs are spiraling out of control (and have been for about 12-15 years)

the problem of access basically has three solutions
1) get everyone access by enrolling everyone in a plan
2) mandating coverage by private industry
3) ignoring the problem - or denying responsibility for the problem

of course, option 3 leads to other consequences - like people using emergency rooms as primary care facilities because they have nowhere else to go - thus making them something everyone pays for anyway, just more expensive because the cost of ER care is far higher than preventative medicine - which leads to how to fix problem 2

the problem of cost basically has three solutions
1) completely privatizing all health care - this will "let the market decide" and will ultimately leave millions uncovered (more than now by a large margin) while those the insurance industry is willing to cover, and the very wealthy get care
2) creating a purely public system to create a single payer that uses economies of scale to drive down the cost of care
3) a system of price controls, that inevitably becomes a complex process that becomes more political than anything else, which certainly won't solve the problems of cost in the end

It really depends on what you are hoping to achieve in the end - me? I believe it's in our national interest, both economic and otherwise to have a healthier population. I believe that as long as the driving motivation in the health care industry is profits for shareholders, the public good will not be served. Moreover the problems of access and cost will never be remedied by them for two reasons - they have no incentive to cover anyone but the healthiest people, and they have no interest in saving anyone but themselves money... so they will continue putting upward pressure on costs to maximize revenue and profits.

a public system - developed with the goal of covering all citizens will enable the government to negotiate as a single payer, and drive down prices in the process. I'm under no delusion that it will somehow be a perfect system, few systems are... but I think it will be a significant improvement over the absurd situation we have now...

[ASUMountaineer]

If you say so, I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think socialized medicine (even a little bit of it) is going to fix "health care" (which is really giving everyone insurance). Just because other countries do it, doesn't make it the right choice for us. But, I'm one of those who is un-American, so you shouldn't listen to me. I just find it odd that the left is unwilling to look at any other option for health care reform, they just want to slam "a public option" through.

I'm not on the side of the insurance companies, I'm just against the side of the government running health care. I guess, according to Steny Pelosi W. Obama I am not with the government, so I must be against it.

zuh??? if you're referring to the op-ed where congressional leadership called the angry mobs attempting to disrupt legitimate town meetings as anti-american, which was subsequently spun in to the right wing screaming "they called us anti-american" bullshit. but hey, for all their mocking of it, NOBODY does the whole play the victim when you havent been victimized thing quite like the right in this country.

As for the assertion that "the left isn't willing.... blah blah" that's a lot of bunk. The whole notion that people who've spent their lives in politics haven't looked at countless options for how to fix this problem is one of the most absurd side shows of this whole debate. thousands of options have been discussed over the years - and have been given consideration... the problem, as i see it, isn't the "the left ONLY looking at a public option" but rather the right's absolute refusal to compromise on any aspect of reforming health care.

how do people arrive at the idea that a public option (a HUGE compromise) or a single-payer system is the right idea? start with the two big problems in health care
1) access - right now 47 million are uninsured, and several million more are underinsured
2) costs - right now costs are spiraling out of control (and have been for about 12-15 years)

the problem of access basically has three solutions
1) get everyone access by enrolling everyone in a plan
2) mandating coverage by private industry
3) ignoring the problem - or denying responsibility for the problem

of course, option 3 leads to other consequences - like people using emergency rooms as primary care facilities because they have nowhere else to go - thus making them something everyone pays for anyway, just more expensive because the cost of ER care is far higher than preventative medicine - which leads to how to fix problem 2

the problem of cost basically has three solutions
1) completely privatizing all health care - this will "let the market decide" and will ultimately leave millions uncovered (more than now by a large margin) while those the insurance industry is willing to cover, and the very wealthy get care
2) creating a purely public system to create a single payer that uses economies of scale to drive down the cost of care
3) a system of price controls, that inevitably becomes a complex process that becomes more political than anything else, which certainly won't solve the problems of cost in the end

It really depends on what you are hoping to achieve in the end - me? I believe it's in our national interest, both economic and otherwise to have a healthier population. I believe that as long as the driving motivation in the health care industry is profits for shareholders, the public good will not be served. Moreover the problems of access and cost will never be remedied by them for two reasons - they have no incentive to cover anyone but the healthiest people, and they have no interest in saving anyone but themselves money... so they will continue putting upward pressure on costs to maximize revenue and profits.

a public system - developed with the goal of covering all citizens will enable the government to negotiate as a single payer, and drive down prices in the process. I'm under no delusion that it will somehow be a perfect system, few systems are... but I think it will be a significant improvement over the absurd situation we have now...

Wow Travelinman, you totally don't understand what means. Anyways, thanks for the Tman post...I'll respond here in a min once I've read it.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

copy and paste the bill in to word - came out to about 500 pages, which, if you've been around legislation at all, is not really that outrageous... most of those pages... are definitions - pretty s.o.p.

the problem seems to stem from 1) a serious misinformation campaign being waged 2) a lot of people unfamiliar with the legislative process being told "it's a 1000 page bill!!!" without realizing that there are many, many larger bills every year.

Wow! Single spacing rather than double. That makes it must less worrisome. And much less confusing with its' references to other pieces of legislation no one has read.

The bottom line for me is that I have perfectly good insurance now and this piece of legislation, written by people who do NOT have my best interests at heart, whose track record at resolving so-called problems is NOT at all good, just seems like an opportunity for our honorable legislators to place their best interests above mine. And this is non-partisan. Neither side give a hoot-in-hell about the "average American".

as for the problem with the presentation of the bill - have you ever read any other bills? all bills refer to other pieces of legislation, because new laws don't exist in a vacuum separate from other laws... in fact, most of the language in a bill has to be there to ensure the new legislation works with the rest of US Code...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

zuh??? if you're referring to the op-ed where congressional leadership called the angry mobs attempting to disrupt legitimate town meetings as anti-american, which was subsequently spun in to the right wing screaming "they called us anti-american" bullshit. but hey, for all their mocking of it, NOBODY does the whole play the victim when you havent been victimized thing quite like the right in this country.

As for the assertion that "the left isn't willing.... blah blah" that's a lot of bunk. The whole notion that people who've spent their lives in politics haven't looked at countless options for how to fix this problem is one of the most absurd side shows of this whole debate. thousands of options have been discussed over the years - and have been given consideration... the problem, as i see it, isn't the "the left ONLY looking at a public option" but rather the right's absolute refusal to compromise on any aspect of reforming health care.

how do people arrive at the idea that a public option (a HUGE compromise) or a single-payer system is the right idea? start with the two big problems in health care
1) access - right now 47 million are uninsured, and several million more are underinsured
2) costs - right now costs are spiraling out of control (and have been for about 12-15 years)

the problem of access basically has three solutions
1) get everyone access by enrolling everyone in a plan
2) mandating coverage by private industry
3) ignoring the problem - or denying responsibility for the problem

of course, option 3 leads to other consequences - like people using emergency rooms as primary care facilities because they have nowhere else to go - thus making them something everyone pays for anyway, just more expensive because the cost of ER care is far higher than preventative medicine - which leads to how to fix problem 2

the problem of cost basically has three solutions
1) completely privatizing all health care - this will "let the market decide" and will ultimately leave millions uncovered (more than now by a large margin) while those the insurance industry is willing to cover, and the very wealthy get care
2) creating a purely public system to create a single payer that uses economies of scale to drive down the cost of care
3) a system of price controls, that inevitably becomes a complex process that becomes more political than anything else, which certainly won't solve the problems of cost in the end

It really depends on what you are hoping to achieve in the end - me? I believe it's in our national interest, both economic and otherwise to have a healthier population. I believe that as long as the driving motivation in the health care industry is profits for shareholders, the public good will not be served. Moreover the problems of access and cost will never be remedied by them for two reasons - they have no incentive to cover anyone but the healthiest people, and they have no interest in saving anyone but themselves money... so they will continue putting upward pressure on costs to maximize revenue and profits.

a public system - developed with the goal of covering all citizens will enable the government to negotiate as a single payer, and drive down prices in the process. I'm under no delusion that it will somehow be a perfect system, few systems are... but I think it will be a significant improvement over the absurd situation we have now...

Wow Travelinman, you totally don't understand what means. Anyways, thanks for the Tman post...I'll respond here in a min once I've read it.

missed the smiley

and yeah... the post ran long - but, rest assured I actually wrote it - i didnt copy-paste from some blog...
do take the time to read it - it was actually the more concise version of things (scary, ain't it )

[TheDancinMonarch]

as for the problem with the presentation of the bill - have you ever read any other bills? all bills refer to other pieces of legislation, because new laws don't exist in a vacuum separate from other laws... in fact, most of the language in a bill has to be there to ensure the new legislation works with the rest of US Code...

Yes. And that's why they all work so well.

[UNI88]

Wow! Single spacing rather than double. That makes it must less worrisome. And much less confusing with its' references to other pieces of legislation no one has read.

The bottom line for me is that I have perfectly good insurance now and this piece of legislation, written by people who do NOT have my best interests at heart, whose track record at resolving so-called problems is NOT at all good, just seems like an opportunity for our honorable legislators to place their best interests above mine. And this is non-partisan. Neither side give a hoot-in-hell about the "average American".

as for the problem with the presentation of the bill - have you ever read any other bills? all bills refer to other pieces of legislation, because new laws don't exist in a vacuum separate from other laws... in fact, most of the language in a bill has to be there to ensure the new legislation works with the rest of US Code...

I will support TTBF on this one - 1000 pages isn't huge, the majority of any bill is usually made up of definitions, and bills frequently refer to existing laws.

My biggest problem with the most recent Congressional approach to this legislation was the haste with which they attempted to shove the legislation through. Anything this important should require careful consideration and a considerable amount of testimony. The goal of shoving this thing through before the August recess was irresponsible at best.

[ASUMountaineer]

If you say so, I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think socialized medicine (even a little bit of it) is going to fix "health care" (which is really giving everyone insurance). Just because other countries do it, doesn't make it the right choice for us. But, I'm one of those who is un-American, so you shouldn't listen to me. I just find it odd that the left is unwilling to look at any other option for health care reform, they just want to slam "a public option" through.

I'm not on the side of the insurance companies, I'm just against the side of the government running health care. I guess, according to Steny Pelosi W. Obama I am not with the government, so I must be against it.

zuh??? if you're referring to the op-ed where congressional leadership called the angry mobs attempting to disrupt legitimate town meetings as anti-american, which was subsequently spun in to the right wing screaming "they called us anti-american" bullshit. but hey, for all their mocking of it, NOBODY does the whole play the victim when you havent been victimized thing quite like the right in this country.

I thought it was hilarious, but clearly Pelosi and Hoyer "acted stupidly." So much so, Obama has distanced himself...kind of like DADT.

As for the assertion that "the left isn't willing.... blah blah" that's a lot of bunk. The whole notion that people who've spent their lives in politics haven't looked at countless options for how to fix this problem is one of the most absurd side shows of this whole debate. thousands of options have been discussed over the years - and have been given consideration... the problem, as i see it, isn't the "the left ONLY looking at a public option" but rather the right's absolute refusal to compromise on any aspect of reforming health care.

There have been other proposals in addition to this, but the "public option is the only one being put forward for debate.

how do people arrive at the idea that a public option (a HUGE compromise) or a single-payer system is the right idea? start with the two big problems in health care
1) access - right now 47 million are uninsured, and several million more are underinsured
2) costs - right now costs are spiraling out of control (and have been for about 12-15 years)

the problem of access basically has three solutions
1) get everyone access by enrolling everyone in a plan
2) mandating coverage by private industry
3) ignoring the problem - or denying responsibility for the problem

of course, option 3 leads to other consequences - like people using emergency rooms as primary care facilities because they have nowhere else to go - thus making them something everyone pays for anyway, just more expensive because the cost of ER care is far higher than preventative medicine - which leads to how to fix problem 2

the problem of cost basically has three solutions
1) completely privatizing all health care - this will "let the market decide" and will ultimately leave millions uncovered (more than now by a large margin) while those the insurance industry is willing to cover, and the very wealthy get care
2) creating a purely public system to create a single payer that uses economies of scale to drive down the cost of care
3) a system of price controls, that inevitably becomes a complex process that becomes more political than anything else, which certainly won't solve the problems of cost in the end

It really depends on what you are hoping to achieve in the end - me? I believe it's in our national interest, both economic and otherwise to have a healthier population. I believe that as long as the driving motivation in the health care industry is profits for shareholders, the public good will not be served. Moreover the problems of access and cost will never be remedied by them for two reasons - they have no incentive to cover anyone but the healthiest people, and they have no interest in saving anyone but themselves money... so they will continue putting upward pressure on costs to maximize revenue and profits.

a public system - developed with the goal of covering all citizens will enable the government to negotiate as a single payer, and drive down prices in the process. I'm under no delusion that it will somehow be a perfect system, few systems are... but I think it will be a significant improvement over the absurd situation we have now...

I understand you're points, and they are valid. Perhaps I'm too idealistic to consider whether we have an obligation to provide all citizens access to health insurance. I argue no, it is not a right to have health insurance.

Now, do we want to look at it like we do public schooling, as you said "in the nations best interest?" That's a better argument, that you don't hear much. You hear more about what's in it for the 47 million uninsured, than you do what's in it for the 253 million insured. That's where the proponents are dropping the ball. Nevertheless, I agree, a public option (which I believe, over time, will become the only option) is a compromise for those on the left...one in which the right may be unwilling to swallow. I have posted my compromise on here before, so I won't again, but I think it's a compromise where both sides win.

To the argument about insurance companies being about money than helping...of course. That's how most industries are, so if we have to do this with health insurance, where does it stop? What's the next industry that needs to ran by the government? I know that's an extreme generalization, but you give a person an inch, he'll take a mile. It's a concern of mine, and many of those who are skeptical of a public option.

Look, I have insurance, but what happens if my company decides to go with the public option and it's worse than what I have now? Sure, I can keep private insurance if I so choose, but why would I pay for two policies, a public one (I'm not using) and my private one? There's no way to opt out of paying for the public option that I've heard of. This is how, I believe, ipso facto the public option becomes the only option. And, one of the main reasons people are against it. To me, a true public option, would be people who want it have to pay for it. I'm not sure how practical that is, but if all 47 million were put in one insurance pool, I would think the rates would be reasonable. But, raising taxes on other people to pay for other's health insurance and then tell them, "well, you can keep yours if you like it better" sure doesn't sound like having their best interest at heatrt.

I apologize if that rambling jumped around, but eating and posting is not a talent of mine.

[ASUMountaineer]

Wow Travelinman, you totally don't understand what means. Anyways, thanks for the Tman post...I'll respond here in a min once I've read it.

missed the smiley

and yeah... the post ran long - but, rest assured I actually wrote it - i didnt copy-paste from some blog...
do take the time to read it - it was actually the more concise version of things (scary, ain't it )

I would enjoy having a "beer summit" on health care with you TTBF.

[AZGrizFan]

It really depends on what you are hoping to achieve in the end - me? I believe it's in our national interest, both economic and otherwise to have a healthier population. I believe that as long as the driving motivation in the health care industry is profits for shareholders, the public good will not be served. Moreover the problems of access and cost will never be remedied by them for two reasons - they have no incentive to cover anyone but the healthiest people, and they have no interest in saving anyone but themselves money... so they will continue putting upward pressure on costs to maximize revenue and profits.

a public system - developed with the goal of covering all citizens will enable the government to negotiate as a single payer, and drive down prices in the process. I'm under no delusion that it will somehow be a perfect system, few systems are... but I think it will be a significant improvement over the absurd situation we have now...

TTBF, your blind faith in the government's ability (in your mind) to "solve" this issue is truly frightening.

[UNI88]

Wow Travelinman, you totally don't understand what means. Anyways, thanks for the Tman post...I'll respond here in a min once I've read it.

missed the smiley

and yeah... the post ran long - but, rest assured I actually wrote it - i didnt copy-paste from some blog...
do take the time to read it - it was actually the more concise version of things (scary, ain't it )

I read it and can agree with much of what you stated (especially the far right always claiming to be victims).

Yes the left has demonstrated a willingness to work on certain aspects of the legislation. What I have found interesting is:
1) their attempts to shove the legislation through without enough discussion (see my prior post)
2) the far left's apparent willingness to ignore the blue dogs and demand what they want
3) the lack of any attempt to address the impact of litigation and the fear of litigation on medical costs and availability of practitioners.

[UNI88]

It really depends on what you are hoping to achieve in the end - me? I believe it's in our national interest, both economic and otherwise to have a healthier population. I believe that as long as the driving motivation in the health care industry is profits for shareholders, the public good will not be served. Moreover the problems of access and cost will never be remedied by them for two reasons - they have no incentive to cover anyone but the healthiest people, and they have no interest in saving anyone but themselves money... so they will continue putting upward pressure on costs to maximize revenue and profits.

a public system - developed with the goal of covering all citizens will enable the government to negotiate as a single payer, and drive down prices in the process. I'm under no delusion that it will somehow be a perfect system, few systems are... but I think it will be a significant improvement over the absurd situation we have now...

TTBF, your blind faith in the government's ability (in your mind) to "solve" this issue is truly frightening.

I would like to see a detailed explanation of how the public option will drive down prices. Any discussion about a public option reducing costs through the government's negotiating power forgets a couple of things:
- $500 hammers
- the federal government isn't as efficient as the private sector, it will likely take two government employees to do the job that one private sector employee could have handled.
- the system can be "worked" in order to recoup lost profits for those who are willing to do so.
- driving down the costs makes the industry less appealing and will likely have a negative impact on the availability of medical practitioners in many areas and medical fields.

[AZGrizFan]

I read it and can agree with much of what you stated (especially the far right always claiming to be victims).

Yeah, because the left NEVER does that, right?
Jesus, the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

missed the smiley

and yeah... the post ran long - but, rest assured I actually wrote it - i didnt copy-paste from some blog...
do take the time to read it - it was actually the more concise version of things (scary, ain't it )

I read it and can agree with much of what you stated (especially the far right always claiming to be victims).

Yes the left has demonstrated a willingness to work on certain aspects of the legislation. What I have found interesting is:
1) their attempts to shove the legislation through without enough discussion (see my prior post)
2) the far left's apparent willingness to ignore the blue dogs and demand what they want
3) the lack of any attempt to address the impact of litigation and the fear of litigation on medical costs and availability of practitioners.

as i understand it from a couple friends who are chiefs of staff and ld's out there -

1. the idea was to pass a bill before the recess because there was outcry about "getting work done" before the district work period
2. the blue dogs (not all of them, but some) are very cozy with the insurance industry, and that's a well known thing on the hill.
3. health care is thorny enough debate without throwing tort reform, an issue that can be dealt with separately - and i think that was the idea.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I read it and can agree with much of what you stated (especially the far right always claiming to be victims).

Yeah, because the left NEVER does that, right?
Jesus, the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

the hypocrisy - dingus - comes from mocking and deriding people for a "culture of victimhood" and being a political party bereft of empathy, while at the same time whining and bitching about being victims (victims of "the media" or of "bullying" etc)

the hilarity derives from conks ability to openly mock people who complain about anything as "playing the victim" when they've turned it in to a fvcking art.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

It really depends on what you are hoping to achieve in the end - me? I believe it's in our national interest, both economic and otherwise to have a healthier population. I believe that as long as the driving motivation in the health care industry is profits for shareholders, the public good will not be served. Moreover the problems of access and cost will never be remedied by them for two reasons - they have no incentive to cover anyone but the healthiest people, and they have no interest in saving anyone but themselves money... so they will continue putting upward pressure on costs to maximize revenue and profits.

a public system - developed with the goal of covering all citizens will enable the government to negotiate as a single payer, and drive down prices in the process. I'm under no delusion that it will somehow be a perfect system, few systems are... but I think it will be a significant improvement over the absurd situation we have now...

TTBF, your blind faith in the government's ability (in your mind) to "solve" this issue is truly frightening.

it's not a blind faith in the government - it's that i have even less faith in profit-driven insurance companies to serve the public good... companies don't do what is right, they do what makes them money... and that, in this debate, is the wrong motive

[TheDancinMonarch]

TTBF, your blind faith in the government's ability (in your mind) to "solve" this issue is truly frightening.

it's not a blind faith in the government - it's that i have even less faith in profit-driven insurance companies to serve the public good... companies don't do what is right, they do what makes them money... and that, in this debate, is the wrong motive

The government plan will be run and administered by people who will be in it for their paychecks. And as with everything else the government does there will be inefficiencies and incompetence. The insurance company wants to keep me alive so I will keep paying my premiums. No such motivation will exist in the government plan for if they run short of money they will just ration care or raise taxes, neither of which are acceptable.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

TTBF, your blind faith in the government's ability (in your mind) to "solve" this issue is truly frightening.

I would like to see a detailed explanation of how the public option will drive down prices. Any discussion about a public option reducing costs through the government's negotiating power forgets a couple of things:
- $500 hammers
- the federal government isn't as efficient as the private sector, it will likely take two government employees to do the job that one private sector employee could have handled.
- the system can be "worked" in order to recoup lost profits for those who are willing to do so.
- driving down the costs makes the industry less appealing and will likely have a negative impact on the availability of medical practitioners in many areas and medical fields.

the hammer thing, iirc was used by DoD to fund research they were trying to keep off the books, and isn't really happening anymore, however, your point of the need for oversight is an important one

the administrative overhead is cheaper for Medicare and the VA than it is for private insurance - and that's today.

i'm not sure i understand you point on "working" the system (elaborate if you'd like)

if someone is getting in to the health care field to get rich - ya know what... plastic surgery will still exist outside this framework - have a blast

[AZGrizFan]

TTBF, your blind faith in the government's ability (in your mind) to "solve" this issue is truly frightening.

it's not a blind faith in the government - it's that i have even less faith in profit-driven insurance companies to serve the public good... companies don't do what is right, they do what makes them money... and that, in this debate, is the wrong motive

There isn't ONE thing the government does well. This isn't something I want them fucking with.

[bobbythekidd]

it's not a blind faith in the government - it's that i have even less faith in profit-driven insurance companies to serve the public good... companies don't do what is right, they do what makes them money... and that, in this debate, is the wrong motive

I don't agree with you very often but I agree with this post. +1 for a public option.

[AZGrizFan]

it's not a blind faith in the government - it's that i have even less faith in profit-driven insurance companies to serve the public good... companies don't do what is right, they do what makes them money... and that, in this debate, is the wrong motive

I don't agree with you very often but I agree with this post. +1 for a public option.

Ah, what the fuck does a redneck from Georgia know, Bobby?

[ASUMountaineer]

I don't agree with you very often but I agree with this post. +1 for a public option.

Ah, what the **** does a redneck from Georgia know, Bobby?

Probably more than a desert dwelling, McCain supporter, and proud alumnus of Sarah Palin U.

[Ibanez]

I have read snippets of the bill and it's scary people, DOWNRIGHT SCARY. Orwell's predictions will unfold before our very eyes if this passes. Stalin and Hitler will look like Sunday school picnics if Obama gets his legalized euthanasia put into place. THIS MUST BE DEFEATED AT ALL COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God help us in these perilous last days we face. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti.

... wow, the old saying is right

"a lie gets halfway round the world before the truth can even get pants on"

by the way, this hysteria has created a counterpart to the "birthers" the equally hilarious "deathers" who haven't taken the time to actually understand the bill...

Deathers? Who in the hell are they? Are they the ones that are shouting at these town hall meetings?

[AZGrizFan]

Ah, what the **** does a redneck from Georgia know, Bobby?

Probably more than a desert dwelling, McCain supporter, and proud alumnus of Sarah Palin U.

That's right baby, a TRIPLE THREAT!!!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Ah, what the **** does a redneck from Georgia know, Bobby?

Probably more than a desert dwelling, McCain supporter, and proud alumnus of Sarah Palin U.

[UNI88]

TTBF, I don’t disagree with you that there is a crisis looming but I’m sure that the big government approach is the best solution. And I agree with ASUMountaineer that its about what is in the nation’s best interest (similar to infrastructure investments like the interstate highway system) rather than people having a right to healthcare.

1. the idea was to pass a bill before the recess because there was outcry about "getting work done" before the district work period
2. the blue dogs (not all of them, but some) are very cozy with the insurance industry, and that's a well known thing on the hill.
3. health care is thorny enough debate without throwing tort reform, an issue that can be dealt with separately - and i think that was the idea.

1. Great, our elected officials are more interested in appearing to accomplish something than making sure they are accomplishing the right things. When will we get leaders in Washington who are worthy of being called leaders?

2. Yes but ramming through a solution that doesn’t play well in more conservative districts could have an impact on the Dem majority in the future.

3. Maybe but you can’t truly address healthcare costs without addressing tort reform. And tort reform is too important of an element to the Republicans for you to honestly say the effort is bi-partisan if it isn't included in the discussions. And if you try to tell me that I should go along with the current efforts and trust Congressional leadership to really address tort reform later I’m going to believe you and Congressional leaders about as much as I would a snake oil salesman.

it's not a blind faith in the government - it's that i have even less faith in profit-driven insurance companies to serve the public good... companies don't do what is right, they do what makes them money... and that, in this debate, is the wrong motive

Why? Profit can be a powerful motive and with appropriate oversight can lead to great accomplishments. Why would a government bureaucracy driven more by the need to self-perpetuate than by any humanitarian cause be any better than the private sector?

the administrative overhead is cheaper for Medicare and the VA than it is for private insurance - and that's today.

i'm not sure i understand you point on "working" the system (elaborate if you'd like)

I don't know if this article is still available but it has some info on how providers can "work" Medicare as well as getting into why that approach can actually be more expensive.

Bending the curve on health spending
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 1064.story

Interesting and relevent commentary from Denis Cortese, MD, president and CEO of Mayo Clinic and Jeffrey Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center.

Over the past several weeks, President Barack Obama and some congressional leaders have cited Mayo Clinic and other medical group practices as "a great value" for your health care dollar: high-quality care at costs that are significantly less than other parts of the country.

While we appreciate this recognition, we question whether our political leaders realize that many doctors and hospitals that offer this high-value care are reaching the point where we cannot afford to provide it to patients with government-sponsored insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid. We worry that the same could hold true for patients in a new government-run public insurance plan.
...
Meanwhile, overall Medicare spending is ballooning because many providers have responded to price controls by increasing the number of services they offer . . . spending less and less time with patients but having them return for more frequent office visits, tests and procedures, driving up the volume of billable services. An example: From 2001 to 2005, Medicare cut payments to physicians yet spending-per-beneficiary rose because volumes increased. Research from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care shows that many of these "extra" services add nothing but cost to the patient's care.

To stem skyrocketing health care costs, lawmakers must create financial incentives that reward caregivers for working together to provide high-quality, affordable care. They must pay for value. More than 25 years of experience have proven that price controls do the opposite, yet more than half the financing in proposed health care reform bills comes from continued across-the-board reductions in price-controlled payments. That won't work.

Instead, lawmakers should put the money where their mouth is. Define and pay for "a great value": superior patient outcomes, safety and service provided at the lowest possible cost. We can create this simple value score for clinics and hospitals by using standard performance data and hone these measures as better information becomes available.

Over the long term, we should pay for value without artificial price controls. Recognizing that price controls will not go away tomorrow, however, we support an interim approach that would work within the existing Medicare payment model.

if someone is getting in to the health care field to get rich - ya know what... plastic surgery will still exist outside this framework - have a blast

It isn't about getting rich it's about attracting talent. The Medical profession is a demanding one that takes considerable training. Doctors have to go through undergrad, med school, internships & residencies. The more BS (government price pressures, fear of litigation, etc.) they have to put up with the less appealing the vocation. Maybe you're OK with Dr. Nick but I want my doctor, nurses, etc. to be top notch.