A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Healthcare Plan

[Mark B. Morrow]

Rolling Stone has an interesting article too:

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...ick_and_wrong/1

 

Sick and Wrong

How Washington is screwing up health care reform – and why it may take a revolt to fix it

 

 

 

Intelligence and Perspective

 

 

Good article Edstock. I haven't read Rolling Stone in a long while.

[Edstock]

SLIME TIME

 

The GOP's Fake Doctor Council

 

How Obamacare opponents scam physicians and the public.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2227226/

 

From the gang that brought you Astro-turf.

 

Intelligence and Perspective

[xr7g428]

If everyone told the truth, we could bring the discussion to one question: Single payer system; yes or no.

 

Here are a couple of suggestions:

 

1. Make it possible for the uninsured to buy into a medicare policy, with deductible (pre tax) dollars just like they could if they had an employer provided plan.

 

2. Vote up or down on one small "bullet point" issue at a time, with out all of the buying consensus crap added on. Example: Allow insurance compaines to sell policies across state lines: yes or no.

[Mark B. Morrow]

If everyone told the truth, we could bring the discussion to one question: Single payer system; yes or no.

 

Here are a couple of suggestions:

 

1. Make it possible for the uninsured to buy into a medicare policy, with deductible (pre tax) dollars just like they could if they had an employer provided plan.

 

Buying into a Medicare Plan is the Public Option as it applies to people not covered by an employer's insurance plan.

 

2. Vote up or down on one small "bullet point" issue at a time, with out all of the buying consensus crap added on. Example: Allow insurance compaines to sell policies across state lines: yes or no.

 

You end up with an unworkable mish-mash of contradictory provisions. The plan needs to be comprehensive in order for it to work. I have no problem in allowing insurance companies to sell nationwide as long as the policies have a set minimum of coverage or the policies comply with the regulations of the state they are sold in. Otherwise you end up with a race to the bottom with everyone getting insurance from the state with the least regulation. Just like credit cards all coming from South Dakota because the regulations are the least strict there.

 

Anyone who supports strong local control would not object to keeping the state regulators involved for the protection of their citizens.

[grbeck]

The Rolling Stone article starts off badly, and goes downhill from there.

 

We do not have the worst health care system in the developed world. After the political BS measurements inserted by the World Health Organization are removed, our system is among the BEST.

[grbeck]

Mark Morrow: You end up with an unworkable mish-mash of contradictory provisions. The plan needs to be comprehensive in order for it to work. I have no problem in allowing insurance companies to sell nationwide as long as the policies have a set minimum of coverage or the policies comply with the regulations of the state they are sold in. Otherwise you end up with a race to the bottom with everyone getting insurance from the state with the least regulation. Just like credit cards all coming from South Dakota because the regulations are the least strict there.

 

Anyone who supports strong local control would not object to keeping the state regulators involved for the protection of their citizens.

 

The problem is that this approach defeats the entire purpose of allowing the sale of insurance policies across state lines. States add mandates that drive up the cost of insurance policies.

 

Pennsylvania, for example, recently mandated the coverage of autism services for all policies.

 

Given that the largest group of uninsured individuals is heathly, childless 20-somethings, adding this mandate hardly encourages them to purchase health insurance. What they need are barebones policies that provide coverage for catastrophic events, not policies that cover everything and the kitchen sink. Unfortunately, state regulations are making it impossible for them to buy this type of policy.

Edited September 8, 2009 by grbeck

[Mark B. Morrow]

The problem is that this approach defeats the entire purpose of allowing the sale of insurance policies across state lines. States add mandates that drive up the cost of insurance policies.

 

Pennsylvania, for example, recently mandated the coverage of autism services for all policies.

 

Given that the largest group of uninsured individuals is heathly, childless 20-somethings, adding this mandate hardly encourages them to purchase health insurance. What they need are barebones policies that provide coverage for catastrophic events, not policies that cover everything and the kitchen sink. Unfortunately, state regulations are making it impossible for them to buy this type of policy.

 

They could still sell across State lines much like auto insurers do. The question is whether they would want to if they had to comply with state regulations.

 

 

Hence the conundrum of having expensive insurance that covers everything or practically useless insurance that covers nothing. There is certainly good reason to believe that many employers will buy the cheapest policy available in businesses where employees don't have much mobility. Execs and CEOs will still get great "Cadillac Plans".

 

Merely allowing sales across sstate lines won't bring down costs of good plans because there really won't be much competition. It is the reason Yugo was never a competitor for Mercedes-Benz. We will be comparing Apples to Oranges. The Insurance Exchange program will have set minimum standards. Bad insurance plans won't do anything to avoid the bankruptcies resulting from high cost medical conditions.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[Mark B. Morrow]

The Rolling Stone article starts off badly, and goes downhill from there.

 

We do not have the worst health care system in the developed world. After the political BS measurements inserted by the World Health Organization are removed, our system is among the BEST.

 

 

It is great if you can afford it. We still spend way more than the rest of the industrialized world.

[grbeck]

They could still sell across State lines much like auto insurers do. The question is whether they would want to if they had to comply with state regulations.

 

 

Hence the conundrum of having expensive insurance that covers everything or practically useless insurance that covers nothing. There is certainly good reason to believe that many employers will buy the cheapest policy available in businesses where employees don't have much mobility. Execs and CEOs will still get great "Cadillac Plans".

 

Merely allowing sales across sstate lines won't bring down costs of good plans because there really won't be much competition. It is the reason Yugo was never a competitor for Mercedes-Benz. We will be comparing Apples to Oranges. The Insurance Exchange program will have set minimum standards. Bad insurance plans won't do anything to avoid the bankruptcies resulting from high cost medical conditions.

 

The goal here is to increase insurance availability to those who don't have it. Forcing every plan to offer a lavish amount of benefits defeats that goal.

 

Bankruptcies result from serious medical conditions (cancer, heart attack, serious injuries from a car accident, etc.), which a catastrophic plan would cover. People aren't going bankrupt because of the flu or a broken arm.

[grbeck]

It is great if you can afford it. We still spend way more than the rest of the industrialized world.

 

We get more, too. Our efforts to save premature babies are the best in the world. Survival rates for people diagnosed with serious conditions are among the best. People with serious conditions are more likely to get the latest therapies, drugs and technologies as part of their treatment regimen. We also lead the world in medical research and development.

[napfirst]

Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent An Associated Press-GfK poll says that public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent.

 

The same survey shows that 49 percent now disapprove of his overall performance as president. In July, just 42 percent disapproved of how he was handling his job.

 

 

I'm sure who he's listening to anymore......I think he has an agenda and really doesn't care what the people want!

[mikem12]

How far does that responsibility go? Should you go to the doctor? Should the doctor have to treat you? Should we all be responsible for everything to do with our lives? How far are you willing to go with that?

 

this is old but hey what the hell.

 

the clause of life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness. mean the government shall not infringe on your right of liberty to live as you damn well see fit. the pursuit of happiness means the government will not keep you from those thing in life that you enjoy.

 

It says nothing in the constitution any where that the government owes you anything. your freedom, your lifestyle is your choice. If you work to become a millionaire or if you decide you want to be a beggar the constitution guarantees your right to do so.

 

I hate it when the progressive revisionists get started translatiing the constitution into something it is not.

[xr7g428]

Private medical insurance basically provided a customer base with a nearly unlimited amount of money to spend on health care. It created a market where any medical procedure, any piece of equipment, any new form of testing, could and would be used. Health care is at its core a business just like every other; there is no investment with out the possibility of a return. The only reason you can spend $1 million for heart lung transplants is because there is a market for it because patients, armed with insurance, have the ability to pay the people who developed the procedure.

 

And once a treatment, test or therapy exists, we have a legal system that compels doctors to use those tools or face the threat of being sued for failure to do everything possible to treat the patient. If cars were repaired this way, even an oil change would require a battery of tests before the procedure could begin. Just try to visit a doctor for a check up, with out a battery of tests.

 

Armed with a good insurance policy, the average consumer has $3 million in his pocket to spend for care. A policy that can provide $3 million in benefits is going to be expensive no matter whether it is the government or a private company that is picking up the tab. We are going to have to balance our desire to provide a minimum level of care for everyone, with limits on exactly how much is going to be covered.

[Edstock]

Private medical insurance basically provided a customer base with a nearly unlimited amount of money to spend on health care.

Recission?

[Len_A]

Private medical insurance basically provided a customer base with a nearly unlimited amount of money to spend on health care. It created a market where any medical procedure, any piece of equipment, any new form of testing, could and would be used. Health care is at its core a business just like every other; there is no investment with out the possibility of a return. The only reason you can spend $1 million for heart lung transplants is because there is a market for it because patients, armed with insurance, have the ability to pay the people who developed the procedure.

 

And once a treatment, test or therapy exists, we have a legal system that compels doctors to use those tools or face the threat of being sued for failure to do everything possible to treat the patient. If cars were repaired this way, even an oil change would require a battery of tests before the procedure could begin. Just try to visit a doctor for a check up, with out a battery of tests.

 

Armed with a good insurance policy, the average consumer has $3 million in his pocket to spend for care. A policy that can provide $3 million in benefits is going to be expensive no matter whether it is the government or a private company that is picking up the tab. We are going to have to balance our desire to provide a minimum level of care for everyone, with limits on exactly how much is going to be covered.

That's a very valid point. I'm not sure what the answer is anymore, and either way (private insurance or government health care), I fear for the future.

[mikem12]

I fear for the future.

 

 

As many of us do!

[fmccap]

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

 

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

 

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

[RangerM]

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

...72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

I'd really have to wonder what the other 28% have been smoking.

 

Has anyone wondered that if all this money could be saved from the Medicaire system, what has been stopping them all along (before all this health care reform talk)?

 

If there really is that much to be saved, what politician wouldn't want to recover that 'lost' money?

[macattak1]

I'd really have to wonder what the other 28% have been smoking.

 

Has anyone wondered that if all this money could be saved from the Medicaire system, what has been stopping them all along (before all this health care reform talk)?

 

If there really is that much to be saved, what politician wouldn't want to recover that 'lost' money?

 

That 28% is probably broken down into 20% at no comment and 8% as contra.

 

Peace and Blessings

[Ron W.]

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington

 

So they're not willing to compete for clients at a lower income for the doctor?

 

and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early

 

Good for them I'd like to retire early myself. :shades:

[napfirst]

The American people still do not want obamacare:

 

 

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

 

Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.

Read more

[Deanh]

The American people still do not want obamacare:

 

 

 

Read more

heard there is over 500 amendments by the old FOCS ( fraid of change Senators )...I'll be curious if ANYTHING ever gets changed let alone agreed on...bi-partisan is a fallacy........

Edited September 22, 2009 by Deanh

[napfirst]

Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs

By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 7 hours ago

 

WASHINGTON — Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

 

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

 

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

 

Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries.

 

Critics say the plans are overpaid, while supporters say they work well.

 

Obama says cuts to Medicare providers won't reduce seniors' benefits.

 

Link

[RangerM]

Has anyone wondered that if all this money could be saved from the Medicaire system, what has been stopping them all along (before all this health care reform talk)?

 

If there really is that much to be saved, what politician wouldn't want to recover that 'lost' money?

 

I think I got my answer........

 

Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs

WASHINGTON -- Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

 

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

 

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

 

Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries.

 

Critics say the plans are overpaid, while supporters say they work well.

 

Obama says cuts to Medicare providers won't reduce seniors' benefits.

Edited September 23, 2009 by RangerM

[napfirst]

American are confused:

 

 

Morning Bell: Obamacare Puts Transparency and Accountability on Death Bed

Posted September 25th, 2009 at 9.04am in Health Care.

 

The New York Times released a new poll today finding that 55% of Americans believe President Obama has not clearly explained his plans for changing the health care system and 59% said they thought the health care changes under consideration in Congress were confusing. In a follow-up interview, Paul Corkery, a Democrat from Somerset, N.J, said: “The Obama administration seems to have a plan, but I’m not understanding the exact details.” Corkery shouldn’t feel that bad. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the independent nonpartisan agency responsible for reviewing legislative initiatives with budgetary implications, has no idea what is in the legislation either. During yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee mark-up, the CBO realized only after the vote, that they had made a $600 million mistake in scoring an amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).