Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by classicman

IWhat we are doing is insuring 30 million more people (good thing) without knowing exactly how we are going to logistically provide care for them.

What you dont seem willing to acknowledge is that what we are also doing for those 200+ million currently insured is to provide unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits)....and by most objective analyses, they wont see their health care costs continue to rise at the current unmanageable rate (over 100% in the last 10 years).

BTW, one reason for the delay for the Insurance Exchange for those 30 million more people (in addition to writing the regs) is to build greater capacity and efficiencies.

IMO...it is not a "blll just for the sake of a bill". I have said repeatedly that it is far from perfect, but what you guys wont acknowledge is that it provides real reform for the first time ever that will touch most Americans in a positive way.

And yet, those opposed still have never offered a better alternative.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That actually was very good.

Thanks, Merc. We are often on opposite sides of the question, but we can agree that this article makes a number of excellent points and some good suggestions. I would be interested in what Redux would say about it.

(Hint: Read the Atlantic article, Redux)

Originally Posted by SamIam

Thanks, Merc. We are often on opposite sides of the question, but we can agree that this article makes a number of excellent points and some good suggestions. I would be interested in what Redux would say about it.

(Hint: Read the Atlantic article, Redux)

Its an interesting article and offers a self-described generational solution (in very general terms and little in the way of details) that I would agree with in many respects.

Where I would disagree most is the author's suggestion to minimize the government role. Without regulation, IMO, it is a pipe dream to think that a free market approach would put consumer care above profit....be it insurance companies, hospitals or private practitioners.

And because the current system is so entrenched, I think it would be incredibly disruptive in the short-term and likely to be multi-generational, taking decades...far longer than the author suggests. And the article offers little in the way of policy proposals to address the short-term or the interim long-term period in order to get there from here.

SO my concerns is what to do in the meantime and I think the current proposals, beyond the immediate relief to those uninsured and greater security to those with employer-based insurance, also include some consumer-based remedies that move in the right direction (ie rewarding prevention, greater quality control, reducing systemic redundancies, greater information sharing on best practices, etc.)

Bottom line...if we were starting with a clean slate, it might be a good approach, even if it is bit "pie in the sky".

But that is not the case, and IMO, we need to address the shortcomings with the current system while at the same time, moving towards a more efficient and equitable "care over cost" system in the long term.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Redux

Where I would disagree most is the author's suggestion to minimize the government role. Without regulation, IMO, it is a pipe dream to think that a free market approach would put consumer care above profit....be it insurance companies, hospitals or private practitioners.

I agree with you on this. I also think our current system is so opaque that it is difficult to discern which practices, treatments, etc. are the most beneficial for patients.

I do see problems with government funded treatment, as well. For example, I am currently on medicare/medicaid. Medicaid will not cover prescriptions for many anti-anxiety drugs or sleep medications. When I came down with bronchitis, medicaid would not cover the cost of my cough syrup which contained codeine. I don't know if such limitations are a result of the war on drugs or some Puritanical refusal to cover certain medications. It makes no sense to me. I pay nothing for a drug that would cost over $200/month without insurance, yet must pay $20.00 for 30 halcion tabs (for sleep)? My generic anti-depressant is covered, but not my generic cough syrup? What?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Tort reform would have an insignficant impact and yet it is still in the bill if you look.

The impact of the current tort reform is negligible. READ what I wrote - true tort reform. Not just an appeasing mention.

the bulk of the Medicare cuts are to MA providers who have been overpaid by more than 15%.

Thereby reducing the number of providers that will accept it = less providers for those covered.

THere are both costs and benefits implemented immediately and other costs and benefits that are deferred until regulations can be written...unless you expect the Insurance Exchange to be created overnight and w/o public comment (then you would probably complain about acting too quickly and w/o transpaerency).

There are virtually no benefits and the costs start immediately.
Don't tell me what I would and/or wouldn't do. You are getting to be an asshole - please stop.

Exactly what are those provisions that were stripped out that represented the vast majority of reform?
The public option?

I already listed them and do not care to do so again.

Not the enemy, just a partisan.

That you are, and a self admitted one.

you are a hypocrite.

more name calling - very nice.

Originally Posted by classicman

The impact of the current tort reform is negligible. READ what I wrote - true tort reform. Not just an appeasing mention.

Thereby reducing the number of providers that will accept it = less providers for those covered.

There are virtually no benefits and the costs start immediately.
Don't tell me what I would and/or wouldn't do. You are getting to be an asshole - please stop.

I already listed them and do not care to do so again.

That you are, and a self admitted one.

more name calling - very nice.

You have not provided ONE fact to support any of the above..or you are just ignorant of the facts.

I provide facts and you call me a partisan....again.

Asshole.

[classicman]

Ahh, more name calling. Whats wrong with you? Did Santa skip your house or something? Enjoy your one-sided conversation. I'm out.

Originally Posted by classicman

Ahh, more name calling. Whats wrong with you? Did Santa skip your house or something? Enjoy your one-sided conversation. I'm out.

You're out?

What a surprise...thats what you do when you cant respond with facts.

Whats wrong with me?

I just got tired of my opinions being called partisan bullshit by you and Merc (not to mention the facts that I cite regarding the bills that you conveniently chose to ignore....like the fact that the bill will provide unprecedented security to 200+ million in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue...or the facts regarding cuts to MA providers, not patients.) while you consider your opinions to be more factual and less partisan.

And I got tired of turning the other cheek when you and Merc resorted to the endless cheap shots directed at me.

I had enough.....You want to play dirty. I'm in, dude.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Redux

You're out?

What a surprise...thats what you do when you cant respond with facts.

Whats wrong with me?

I just got tired of my opinions being called partisan bullshit by you and Merc (not to mention the facts that I cite regarding the bills that you conveniently chose to ignore....like the fact that the bill will provide unprecedented security to 200+ million in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue...or the facts regarding cuts to MA providers, not patients.) while you consider your opinions to be more factual and less partisan.

And I got tired of turning the other cheek when you and Merc resorted to the endless cheap shots directed at me.

I had enough.....You want to play dirty. I'm in, dude.

You do provide facts. You seem to be knowledgable about the subject, perhaps more so than anyone here (above and beyond the dancers, even) and I appreciate your perspective.

I don't say this because I agree with everything: I say this to let you know that it's noticed. Problem is, those you are discussing with are just what you say, and your facts are irrelevant to them.

But, keep posting. Perhpas you'll be like earwax remover and eventually they'll hear a thing or two you say.

[TheMercenary]

Well now that the whores of the Congress, Landrieu and Nelson among others, have made their sweetheart deals, the effect of that fall out comes out in numbers. They should rename it, "Health Insurance Corporation and Pharmaceutical Corporation Profit Protection Act of 2009."

States With Expanded Health Coverage Fight Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/he...2&ref=politics

[TheMercenary]

The Senate Postmortem, WSJ

We are thus heading toward the first U.S. entitlement program dragged across the finish line on a straight partisan majority, a bill that even its most fervent supporters admit is "flawed" but better than nothing.

It is far worse than nothing. The bill itself is an unprecedented arrogation of federal power over one-seventh of the economy, and even its closest antecedents, Medicare and Medicaid, passed in 1965 with the support of both parties. Reflecting the political consensus that has always inspired durable social reform in America, those entitlements cleared the Senate with more than half of the GOP caucus voting in favor.

The bill Democrats approved on Christmas Eve was drafted "in the shadows, without transparency, just to garner the necessary 60 votes and nothing more," as Mrs. Snowe put it in a statement on Sunday. A law so sweeping and complex that no one can understand it but that will affect the lives of all Americans was thus rushed to passage with little real debate, and less reflection. The Senate considered only 20 of the more than 450 amendments filed.

Those votes were revealing nonetheless, showing that certain Democrats oppose core parts of ObamaCare even as they voted for the final version. Nebraska's Ben Nelson—now justly famous for a Medicaid payoff in return for his vote—and Virginia's Jim Webb voted for the McCain amendment that would have stripped out cuts totalling more than $400 billion in future Medicare spending to fund "universal" health insurance. Along with Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) and Evan Bayh (Indiana), the duo also supported changes that would have excluded tax increases on individuals earning under $200,000, as President Obama promised during his campaign. The tax amendment failed, 45-54.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...877143186.html

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

And I got tired of turning the other cheek when you and Merc resorted to the endless cheap shots directed at me.

I would really like to see all these "endless cheap shots."
I've intentionally NOT done that. Again, you want to lump me in with other posters. STOP IT.

[TheMercenary]

Yea, don't get lumped in with me.

Let it go man. He just doesn't like people who challange the Demoncratic Party propaganda.

[classicman]

At least you admit it - Puts you 1/2 a step ahead of UG.
Seriously - there is enough we disagree upon that he needn't add all that stupid shit you post to any list of mine.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by classicman

I would really like to see all these "endless cheap shots."
I've intentionally NOT done that. Again, you want to lump me in with other posters. STOP IT.

Oh bullshit.

This is the next step after avoiding any points: talk about how nice you are about it all.

Originally Posted by classicman

The impact of the current tort reform is negligible. READ what I wrote - true tort reform. Not just an appeasing mention.

Originally Posted by Redux

the bulk of the Medicare cuts are to MA providers who have been overpaid by more than 15%.

Originally Posted by classicman

Thereby reducing the number of providers that will accept it = less providers for those covered.

Originally Posted by Redux

THere are both costs and benefits implemented immediately and other costs and benefits that are deferred until regulations can be written...unless you expect the Insurance Exchange to be created overnight and w/o public comment (then you would probably complain about acting too quickly and w/o transpaerency).

Originally Posted by classicman

There are virtually no benefits and the costs start immediately.
Don't tell me what I would and/or wouldn't do. You are getting to be an asshole - please stop.

Originally Posted by Redux

Exactly what are those provisions that were stripped out that represented the vast majority of reform?
The public option?

Originally Posted by classicman

I already listed them and do not care to do so again.

Originally Posted by Redux

Not the enemy, just a partisan.

Originally Posted by classicman

That you are, and a self admitted one.

Originally Posted by Redux

you are a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by classicman

more name calling - very nice.

Seriously? Oh well, at least you got merc to suck your dick again.

Oh, am I being a name-caller? Well, YES I am! I freely admit it.

Oh, merc? It's challenge, not CHALLANGE. And, when you mean MORE THAN, as in TOO MUCH, it's T-O-O. Not TO MUCH. Unless you're going to a town called MUCH, in which case TO MUCH would be correct.

Maybe someone will learn something today after all.