The Cellar
Page 2 of 51 1 2 345678912 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

sugarpop 04-24-2009 05:28 PM
bwahahahahahahahahaaa :D

xoxoxoBruce 04-25-2009 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by case (Post 559856)
I will not be presented by any experts and I don't need anybody to decide whether I am valid, thank you very MUCH! :p
Well that's just to damn bad because we've already validated you, so live with it. :p

Griff 04-25-2009 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianR (Post 558280)
The answer to Medicaid et al is simple, as I see it. Government doctors. Government hospitals. they can have their "free" managed care for those who wan it and private doctors for those who don't.

The doctors can be paid a flat salary , perhaps with some enticement such as tuition reimbursement thrown in to sweeten the deal.

As long as there is a choice for the person in question, I fail to see the problem.
[breaks no politics rule]
Well said Brian, this is a sensible solution. A lot of people would be happy to pay cash or use cheaper insurance for their regular gp visits if they knew there was a parallel system for the bad times. What we can't afford is a system that makes private medicine illegal or continues to subsidize paper pushing over health care. [/to acknowlege common sense over politics]

DanaC 04-25-2009 08:03 AM
Most of our private doctors also do NHS work. It's the same personnel. Sometimes using the same facilities. Many semi-decent jobs will include membership of the company's BUPA scheme at a subsidised rate as one of the percs. I was offered it in my last formal job.

kerosene 04-25-2009 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 559987)
Well that's just to damn bad because we've already validated you, so live with it. :p
Wha, so now I'm a parking ticket? Is that it? :D

xoxoxoBruce 04-25-2009 10:28 AM
No, you've been validated as resident artist and heartthrob.

kerosene 04-25-2009 11:06 PM
Sweet! Does that mean I get a free parking pass?

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 07:18 PM
Quote:
The Dems' Disharmony

By George Will
Reconciliation: The action of bringing to agreement, concord, or harmony.
— Oxford English Dictionary

But under Senate rules, "reconciliation" can be a means for coping with disharmony by deepening it. The tactic truncates Senate debate and curtails minority rights. The threat to use it to speed enactment of health-care reform has coincided with talk about possible prosecutions relating to the previous administration's interrogation policies. Harmony is becoming more elusive.


Under "reconciliation," debate on a bill can be limited to 20 hours, enabling passage by a simple majority (51 senators, or 50 with the vice president breaking a tie) rather than requiring 60 votes to terminate debate and vote on final passage. The president and Senate Democrats have decided to use reconciliation by Oct. 15, unless Republicans negotiate compliantly regarding health care. But the threat of reconciliation mocks negotiations.


The reconciliation process was created in 1974 to facilitate adjustments of existing spending programs. Former senator John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says using reconciliation to ram through health-care reform would "circumvent the normal and customary workings of American democracy." But those workings have changed markedly.

The most important alteration of the legislative process in recent decades has been the increasingly promiscuous use of filibusters to impose a de facto supermajority requirement for important legislation. And "important" has become a very elastic term.


It should be difficult for government to act precipitously. "Great innovations," said Jefferson, "should not be forced on slender majorities." Revamping health care — 17 percent of the economy — qualifies as a great innovation. This is especially so because the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system. They would do this by creating a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. It would be able to — indeed, would be intended to — push private insurers out of business.


But when Republicans ran the Senate, they, too, occasionally made dubious use of reconciliation. And Republicans' merely situational commitment to legislative due process was displayed in 2003 when they held open a House vote for three hours until they could pressure enough reluctant Republicans to pass the prescription drug entitlement.


As Washington becomes increasingly opaque to normal Americans, its quarrels come to seem increasingly trivial, even when they are momentous. The reconciliation tactic is unknown to most Americans, and so, too, is the institution at the center of the controversy about torture — the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. From it came the so-called "torture memos" arguing the legality of certain "enhanced interrogation" techniques.


The OLC provides opinions about what is and is not lawful government behavior. By not quickly quashing talk about prosecutions of the authors of the memos — or, by inference, higher officials who acted on the basis of those memos — the president has compromised the OLC's usefulness: If its judgments can be criminalized by the next administration, the OLC can no longer be considered a bulwark of the rule of law.


On the other hand, four things are clear. First, torture is illegal. Second, if an enemy used some of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques against any American, most Americans would call that torture. Third, that does not mean that the memos defending the legality of those techniques were indefensible, let alone criminal, because: Fourth, the president might be mistaken in saying that there is no difficult choice because coercive interrogation techniques are ineffective.


A congressional panel, or one akin to the Sept. 11 commission, should discover what former CIA director George Tenet meant when he said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots." And what former national intelligence director Mike McConnell meant when he said: "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened."


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was frequently briefed as a member of the intelligence committee, could usefully answer the question: What did you know and when did you know it? She regularly conquered reticence about her disapproval of the Bush administration. Why not about the interrogation methods?


Furthermore, four of the president's 15 Cabinet members are former members of Congress, as are the president, vice president and White House chief of staff. So seven of the administration's 18 most senior figures might usefully answer those questions, and this one: What did you do about what you knew?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...inter_friendly

TGRR 05-02-2009 11:26 PM
HAW HAW!

classicman 05-02-2009 11:42 PM
Quote:
It should be difficult for government to act precipitously. "Great innovations," said Jefferson, "should not be forced on slender majorities." Revamping health care — 17 percent of the economy — qualifies as a great innovation. This is especially so because the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system. They would do this by creating a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. It would be able to — indeed, would be intended to — push private insurers out of business.
Bold mine.

TGRR 05-03-2009 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 562368)
Bold mine.
Good. Insurance companies are uniformly thieves and contract breakers.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 06:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 562368)
Bold mine.
Imagine that.

Redux 05-03-2009 07:09 AM
Quote:
This is especially so because the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system. They would do this by creating a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. It would be able to — indeed, would be intended to — push private insurers out of business.
Imagine.....George Will, a conservative columnist, who thinks the govt should do nothing more than it did in 1787, misrepresenting Obama's health plan with the scare of a "government-run" health care system...and freezing out the private sector.

Instead, imagine the truth.....a plan that allows/encourages workers with employer-provided coverage to keep that plan if they so choose but provides more choices, in the same manner as the govt employee plan with options provided by numerous private insurers

And a plan that would allow small business to create health pools to have that same option of choosing from among a plan administered by the govt but providing choices from private insurers.

Merc and Classic.....do you guys ever take the time to look for the facts or just jump on the first editorial opinion that supports your pre-conceived position.

Dont bother answering....your posts speak for themselves.

***

The best throw away line of Will's editorial, re: interrogation/torture techniques:
Quote:
Furthermore, four of the president's 15 Cabinet members are former members of Congress, as are the president, vice president and White House chief of staff. So seven of the administration's 18 most senior figures might usefully answer those questions, and this one: What did you do about what you knew
Imagine the truth...that neither Obama nor any of those cabinet members or senior officials, were chairs or ranking members of the Intel Committees, so none received classified briefings on the torture memos.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562421)
Instead, imagine the {My Opinion}truth.....
I fixed that for you.

Redux 05-03-2009 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562422)
I fixed that for you.
Merc...what would you do w/o your editorials? You certainly never speak for yourself.

Sadly, you are a sucker for every conservative talking point you can find....regardless of the facts.

Please cite anything from any Obama health policy docs that supports George Will's claim.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 07:24 AM
I am less concerned with what Obama wants to do than I am with what Congress is going to do with it as it comes out of committee. And how Congress debates the bill and what process they use to vote on it. Time will tell.

Redux 05-03-2009 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562425)
I am less concerned with what Obama wants to do than I am with what Congress is going to do with it as it comes out of committee. Time will tell.
So neither you nor Wills have anything to support his baseless claim other than your shared distaste for anything government.

I get it...same old bullshit and same old lack of cites from you.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562426)
So neither you nor Wills have anything to support his baseless claim other than your shared distaste for anything government.

I get it...same old bullshit and same old lack of cites from you.
The bold in my post by Will is not some fanciful wonderings of a political commentator. They are factual statements about the process of "reconciliation" and how many lawmakers and legal as well as political scholars view the process as proposed by the current Congress. The individual comes to the table with credentials. You bring none.

Redux 05-03-2009 07:35 AM
The same "reconciliation" Republicans used for welfare reform and Bush's $trillion tax cuts.

And still nothing in the budget proposal, or anything put forth by any Democratic member of Congress, to support Will's conclusion about govt run health care and freezing out private insurers.

That is a fact as well.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562429)
The same "reconciliation" Republicans used for welfare reform and Bush's $trillion tax cuts.

And still nothing in the budget proposal, or anything put forth by any Democratic member of Congress, to support Will's conclusion about govt run health care and freezing out private insurers.

That is a fact as well.
You are a shill for the Obama Administration.

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=562425&postcount=76

Redux 05-03-2009 07:52 AM
Another perspective:

Government-Run Health Care?
Quote:
A group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:

* The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.

* It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."

Conservatives for Patients’ Rights is, as its name indicates, a conservative group, and it’s also quite obviously not a proponent of government-run health care. Its minute-long ad was launched April 27 with what the group said was a month-long $1 million buy.

...the ad implies that the U.S. Congress wants to implement a health system like those in Britain and Canada. That's contrary to what President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have said.

Obama hasn’t called for such a government-run plan, also called a “single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it. The administration has said on the White House’s “Health Care” Web page (and previously on its transition site) that “President Obama and Vice President Biden believe” that government-run health care is “wrong.” And they also believe, the administration says, that the other extreme, “letting the insurance companies operate without rules,” is wrong

Obama has long said he would allow individuals or small businesses to buy insurance through a public plan – like the one now available to members of Congress. But nobody would be forced to drop his or her current insurance, and private plans would exist as they do now. This was the health care plan he promoted as a presidential candidate.

More recently, single-payer advocates have felt shunned by the White House and Congress as the debate over changing the U.S. system has begun. In early March, no single-payer advocate was invited to a White House summit on health care, leading a group of physicians who back such a system to say Obama's message to them and similar groups was to "drop dead." A day before the summit, the White House extended invitations to the president of the group....

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/go...alth_care.html

Redux 05-03-2009 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562434)
You are a shill for the Obama Administration.
LOL....your standard response when I ask you to cite anything factual to support your editorials.

Its OK..call me whatever you want. That is what you do best (although you're not very good at it.)

It doesnt change the facts....and you still havent cited anything from the Democrats in Congress that would suggest plans for a single payer, government run health care system and driving the private sector out.
"We are not Europe. We are not Canada. We need
a uniquely American solution. It has to be a partnership of public and private players." -- Sen Max Baucus, the Dem point man on health reform in Congress.

Maybe because its just more conservative bullshit?

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 08:15 AM
You don't read very well, or you just want to focus on one aspect of Will's commentary. As I stated. I am less concerned with what Obama says he thinks he is going to do as I am with what the final product is going to be coming out of Congress and how they vote on it in the end. {See bold in Will's commentary, which is factual.}

Do I really need to continue to link you back to my previous posts to make that point?

Redux 05-03-2009 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562438)
You don't read very well, or you just want to focus on one aspect of Will's commentary. As I stated. I am less concerned with what Obama says he thinks he is going to do as I am with what the final product is going to be coming out of Congress and how they vote on it in the end. {See bold in Will's commentary, which is factual.}

Do I really need to continue to link you back to my previous posts to make that point?
And I asked you to provide any cite that Congress is even considering a single payer, govt run health care system that would drive out the private sector....and you wont or cant.
"We are not Europe. We are not Canada. We need a uniquely American solution. It has to be a partnership of public and private players." -- Sen Max Baucus, the Democrat point man on health reform in Congress.
Fact...there is no Democrat plan or even remote suggestion for a single payer, govt run health care system.

Do I need to continue to point out the baseless conservative bullshit you post?

The only thing factual in that editorial is that the Democrats, like the Republicans before them, may use reconciliation on a health care reform bill...and even that is questionable w/o support of guys like Baucus.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 08:25 AM
On a higher note:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/go...alth_care.html

was a good link. I believe that is a more accurate assessment of how they want things to go. But they have not sent it through the grinder of lobbyist and special interest groups in Congress so the final product remains to be seen. And on top of that, how is it going to be paid for by the rest of us with jobs and insurance.

Redux 05-03-2009 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562440)
On a higher note:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/go...alth_care.html

was a good link. I believe that is a more accurate assessment of how they want things to go. But they have not sent it through the grinder of lobbyist and special interest groups in Congress so the final product remains to be seen. And on top of that, how is it going to be paid for by the rest of us with jobs and insurance.
The cost of health care reform will be at the heart of the debate.

It would be nice if the bullshit about a govt run system could be excluded from the debate, but that wont happen. I suspect it will be the Republican talking point throughout....along with talk of "rationing care" and "government taking away choices" and "controlling all health care decisions" for you and me.

And as you probably know, from being in the health care system, you and I and the rest of us with jobs and insurance are already paying for the 45+ million uninsured and, for many workers, health care costs are the fastest rising costs they face.

Not to mention the impending Medicare explosion as baby boomers drop into the system.

Something has to be done to provide affordable and accessible health care for all and someone has to pay.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562441)
Something has to be done to provide affordable and accessible health care for all and someone has to pay.
I can't agree more. I just don't want it to be me who pays more.

xoxoxoBruce 05-03-2009 09:35 AM
That's the point of this whole change in the system, if it doesn't happen you will pay more, much much more.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 562454)
That's the point of this whole change in the system, if it doesn't happen you will pay more, much much more.
I am afraid that even if it does change I will be paying more, much more. I have started to hear federal tax rates as high as 49% being floated around, but to date have not found a reliable source for those numbers. That is quite unreasonable IMHO.

TGRR 05-03-2009 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562462)
I have started to hear federal tax rates as high as 49% being floated around, but to date have not found a reliable source for those numbers.
wut

classicman 05-03-2009 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562437)
LOL....your standard response when I ask you to cite anything factual to support your editorials.
Your attack is misdirected. I posted the editorial by George Will not Merc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562441)
you and I and the rest of us with jobs and insurance are already paying for the 45+ million uninsured and, for many workers...
Something has to be done to provide affordable and accessible health care for all and someone has to pay.
So what you are saying is that a Gov't run plan will save those of us who are already paying? Could you please expound on that and cite examples of when any Gov't run plan saved anyone money. Gov't run programs are inherently loaded with bureaucratic costs and obscene costs much more than the private sector and virtually always slow to adapt as the politicians and lobbyists have to get their "piece" of the pie.

Redux 05-03-2009 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 562472)
Your attack is misdirected. I posted the editorial by George Will not Merc.
It looks to me like Merc posted the George Will editorial....but you are often interchangeable.

I thought it was another example of a dishonest editorial:
reconciliation is not something new to the Democrats...the Republicans used it on numerous occasions

there is no plan to "put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system" as Wills suggests and you highlighted.

and this closing bullshit about torture - four of the president's 15 Cabinet members are former members of Congress, as are the president, vice president and White House chief of staff. So seven of the administration's 18 most senior figures might usefully answer those questions, and this one: What did you do about what you knew?
Not one of these Cabinet members or senior officials were on the leadership of the Intel Committees..and therefore had no briefings on the torture memos.
Everything about that editorial was either false or misleading.

Quote:
So what you are saying is that a Gov't run plan will save those of us who are already paying? Could you please expound on that and cite examples of when any Gov't run plan saved anyone money. Gov't run programs are inherently loaded with bureaucratic costs and obscene costs much more than the private sector and virtually always slow to adapt as the politicians and lobbyists have to get their "piece" of the pie.
I will say it again..since you dont seem to get it.

There is NO plan on the table for a government-run, single payer system.

The most likely proposal is a mix of public-private options....workers with employer plans could keep those plans... and to stimulate greater competition by including options comparable to the govt employees plan, which is govt administered but with a mix of private providers.

Small businesses would be encouraged to create health pools and join a plan comparable to the govt employees plan...administered by a govt agency with a range of private insurers providing various levels of coverage (PPO, HMO, etc) at varying rates, from which those small business employers/employees could chose.

One more time.....there is NO plan for a government-run, single payer system.

TGRR 05-03-2009 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 562472)
Could you please expound on that and cite examples of when any Gov't run plan saved anyone money.
Okay.

http://www.newmotorcity.blogspot.com/

Quote:
Toyota's RAV-4 will be produced at Woodstock, Ontario, Canada in a new factory that will employ 1,300 workers.

100,000 Toyota RAV-4's a year will be built, starting in 2008. The Mini-Sport Utility Vehicle has been a big seller in the North American mini-sport utility vehicle market.

Why is Toyota expanding in Canada rather than in the United States? Honda and Nissan have had problems bringing new plants up to maximum production in Alabama and Mississippi due to a lack of literacy and industrial training of the local workers. Company trainers had to use improvised illustrated materials to teach some workers who could not read at a high level to use high-tech production equipment.
In Canada the level of the workers education is so high that the training program you need for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before is minimal compared to what is involved in the southeastern United States.
Another major reason: Canadian workers cost employers $5 per-hour-less because the health-care system is a national, comprehensive system. In the United States the "Big Three" automakers are required to provide expensive heath-care insurance, creating an incentive to close plants and fire (or "early-retire") thousands of employees.
More vehicles are now produced in the Canadian Province of Ontario each year than in the state of Michigan, which was once the center of the automotive industry in north America.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 12:43 PM
We have a health insurance crisis, not a health care crisis.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562477)
[indent]reconciliation is not something new to the Democrats...the Republicans used it on numerous occasions
So now that is your excuse?

Quote:
Everything about that editorial was either false or misleading.
That is a false statement.

classicman 05-03-2009 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562477)
You're right - He did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562477)
There is NO plan on the table for a government-run, single payer system.
The most likely proposal is a mix of public-private options....workers with employer plans could keep those plans... and to stimulate greater competition by including options comparable to the govt employees plan,
which is govt administered but with a mix of private providers.
...administered by a govt agency with a range of private insurers providing various levels of coverage...

One more time.....there is
NO plan for a government-run, single payer system.
ok so you are playing semantics with "Gov't run" versus "Gov't administered.":eyebrow:

Redux 05-03-2009 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 562484)
ok so you are playing semantics with "Gov't run" versus "Gov't administered.":eyebrow:
Not at all.....you just fail to see the difference.

Medicare is a government run plan.

The Federal Employees plan is a government administered plan....with a variety of choices from among private providers, depending on if the employee wants a Chevy or a Cadillac.

And under the Obama and Democratic proposals.....the 2/3 or so of those working Americans with employer-based plans could keep those plans OR consider a plan comparable to the Fed Employees plan with numerous private providers.

There is no proposal to push those on employer-based plans to a Medicare type govt run plan.

One more time....there is NO plan for a government-run, single payer system....despite what you read in George Will editorials or hear from right wing talking heads.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 02:05 PM
The Devil is in the details. It is not that clear Redux what the proposals are going to do and just how much of a penalty will be paid by employers to participate or not participate. They may not "make" anyone drop their plan but until the final details are worked out there are enough questions about whether the federal program will actually give an incentive to all the larger companies, like Walmart currently does, and drop their employer provided plans all together if it is cheaper to put everyone on the Federal dole. You will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.

Redux 05-03-2009 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562500)
You will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.
But its OK for George Will to write in an editorial "with such surety" that "the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system."

Hell, you should be holding George Will to a higher standard than you hold me....he has a lot more followers who believe his every word.

I suggest you write him a letter:
Dear George:

I love your work but you will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.

Sincerely,
Merc
And in the meantime, there is no proposal on the table to push workers in an employer-based plan to a Medicare-type government-run system!!

Damn...what part of that dont you and classic get?

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562504)
But its OK for George Will to write in an editorial "with such surety" that "the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system."

Hell, you should be holding George Will to a higher standard than you hold me....he has a lot more followers who believe his every word.

There is no proposal on the table to push workers in an employer-based plan to a Medicare-type government-run system!!

Damn...what part of that dont you and classic get?
I think the part you don't get is that the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan. Under these programs all government administered health insurance programs, which are privately operated, are not for profit. As I stated the devil will be in the details and at this point we don't know them all yet. But to date what is being proposed will not work on a open market for profit model, a mainstay of our system, unlike all the others that the current admin and dems are proposing. So you really cannot say that this point that "there is no proposal on the table to push workers in an employer-based plan to a Medicare-type government-run system" when in fact that may be the eventual result. You may not say it is planned. I don't see it working any other way.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562504)
I suggest you write him a letter:
Dear George:

I love your work but you will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.

Sincerely,
Merc
Mine would be more like, Dear George, Great job. Keep pissing them off.
Sincerely,
Merc
:D

Redux 05-03-2009 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562505)
I think the part you don't get is that the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan..
Bullshit.....the model is not a national health service like any of the above.

Rather, the model is the FEHB public/private model....the federal employees health benefit program that ofers choices from Care First (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to various national and local private insurance PPOs and HMOs...at a variety of benefit levels and prices....and negotiating better pricing from the private providers through a much greater economy of scale.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562507)
Bullshit.....the model is not a national health service like any of the above.

Rather, the model is the FEHB public/private model....the federal employees health benefit program that ofers choices from Care First (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to various national and local private insurance PPOs and HMOs...at a variety of benefit levels and prices....and negotiating better pricing from the private providers through a much greater economy of scale.
Not bullshit. You are un-informed. You need to do more research. The only system that has true national health insurance is Japan and the UK in those models. Even in Japan the insurance is not a government run progam.

Show me the current plan by Obama and the Dems.

Redux 05-03-2009 02:44 PM
Read the Fact Check again: Government-Run Health Care?

Or the Obama plan from the campaign.

The model is a public/private plan to make health care more accessible and affordable.

OR better yet, how about backing up your own claim for once:
the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan..
Where's your cite?

George Will? :eek:

How about Michele Malkin? ;)

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562511)
Read the Fact Check again: Government-Run Health Care?

Or the Obama plan from the campaign.

OR better yet, how about backing up your own claim for once:
the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan..
Where's your cite? George Will? :eek:
You have to know about the other systems to see the parallels. You obviously don't know about them so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.

Redux 05-03-2009 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562514)
You have to know about the other systems to see the parallels. You obviously don't know about them so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.
So you have no cite......again.

Got it.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 03:15 PM
Plenty of citation out there. I am just not going to discuss with you something you don't understand fully. Currently there is no detailed plan on the table.

Redux 05-03-2009 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562518)
Plenty of citation out there. I am just not going to discuss with you something you don't understand fully. Currently there is no detailed plan on the table.
Plenty of cites? I just asked for one that can provide any factual information that the Democrats will (or have) proposed a UK type national health service.

Next time you ask me for a cite, remember these words:
You obviously don't know (insert issue here) so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.
~ The Merc.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 03:19 PM
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...c-health-plan/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-non-elderly/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-german-model/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562519)
Plenty of cites? I just asked for one that can provide any factual information that the Democrats will (or have) proposed a UK type national health service.

Next time you ask me for a cite, remember these words:
You obviously don't know (insert issue here) so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.
~ The Merc.
You still can't show me the details of a plan that is being proposed by Congress and Obama can you?

Redux 05-03-2009 03:24 PM
LOL.

On a quick read, you have a guy who is comparing an expanded medicare type plan to European plans.

There is no expanded medicare type plan on the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562521)
You still can't show me the details of a plan that is being proposed by Congress and Obama can you?
I gave you the general principles of the plans as discussed by Obama and Congressional Democrats.

There is no plan, nor have there been discussion, of a UK or German or Japanese national health service type.

There is no plan, nor have their been discussions, of a plan funded primarily through general taxes instead of employer/employee premiums.

The framework has been more affordable and accessible through employer based plans, supplemented by government administered FEHB type.

Redux 05-03-2009 03:34 PM
Its all the same bullshit...again and again....issue after issue.

Obama and the Democrats are nationalizing the banks...nationalizing health care...intruding into every possible nook and cranny of our lives.....redistributing the wealth....Socialism is coming!

Will says it...Malkin says it...Limbaugh says it......it must be true!

Get over it, dude!

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562524)
LOL.

On a quick read, you have a guy who is comparing an expanded medicare type plan to European plans.

There is no expanded medicare type plan on the table.


I gave you the general principles of the plans as discussed by Obama and Congressional Democrats.

There is no plan, nor have there been discussion, of a UK or German or Japanese national health service type.

There is no plan, nor have their been discussions, of a plan funded primarily through general taxes instead of employer/employee premiums.

The framework has been more affordable and accessible through employer based plans, supplemented by government administered FEHB type.
Again you are uninformed. The plan generally proposed by Obama during the campaign are from an amalgamation of a number of plans from other countries around the world. You only need to educate yourself to understand the similarities. You say it is not going to be funded through a general tax, but yet you can't say where the money is going to come from? Obama has not proposed supplemental plans, he proposed an either employer based plan or government adminstered plans, not employer based. You have a lot of home work to do on this one.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562525)
Its all the same bullshit...again and again....issue after issue.

Obama and the Democrats are nationalizing the banks...nationalizing health care...intruding into every possible nook and cranny of our lives.....redistributing the wealth....Socialism is coming!
Welcome to a world of US politics dominated one party rule. It just so happens this time it is the Demoncrats. Time will tell. I am willing to wait around to see. But you are right. Demoncrats have intruded into the freemarket to a level never seen before and it makes people nervous. Into the banks, into the auto industry, and now into health care, and it makes people very uncomfortable. You may be comfortable with "I am the government, I am here to help", I am not.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 04:12 PM
Some more great discussions about the current plans. The first two actually took place before the election but it talks about the uncertainty in just how Obama would be able to pull this off without significant concessions by the insurance industry, doctors, and the whole health industry.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/criti...interview.html

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washingt...on-Watch/10652

http://healthcare.nationaljournal.co...ured-how-h.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=101706614

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 04:20 PM
One of the more detailed discussions of Obama's proposals during the run up to the election":

Quote:
He would reinsure employer plans for a portion of their catastrophic costs. This would reduce employer costs but it would do so by simply shifting them onto the government. He runs the risk of shifting these costs away from a market that now has incentives to manage them to a big government program that likely will not have the same incentives to confront and manage them. I don’t see this as cost saving as much as just cost shifting.
Quote:
Obama would make the insurance markets more competitive and efficient by creating the “National Health Insurance Exchange” to promote more efficient competition and he would set a minimum health cost ratio for insurers—not defined in detail. Reducing insurance company overhead is important but constitutes only a small percentage of costs and those overhead costs have been increasing at the rate of general inflation while health care costs have been increasing by two to four times the basic inflation rate in recent years. The biggest cost containment challenge is in the fundamental cost of health care itself.
Quote:
Capping or even reducing costs means you have to cap or reduce costs. There are no magic bullets that reduce payments without doctors, hospitals, insurers, and lawyers getting less than they would have gotten. All of the health IT, prevention, wellness, and the like will not reduce costs by any big amount at least in the short term.
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the...iled-anal.html

Redux 05-03-2009 04:25 PM
Thanks for all the links.

Not one points to anything remotely like a UK, European or Japanese style national health care service. Only George Will's editorial..if that is an example your homework, you still havent supported your basic claim.

Several of the above point to encouraging competition, forcing concessions by the bloated insurance industry. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

For the first time in years, the insurance industry has agreed to come to the table and be part of a broad solution and even offering concessions already (pre-existing conditions, portability) , as long as they are not frozen out of the market..and there is NO intention to freeze them out of the market.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 04:30 PM
Like I said in a previous post. If you understand how the other programs work in the other countries you see the comparisons. Nothing Obama has proposed is detailed to this point. I suspect we will not know until the Dems ram it through Congress and it pops out the otherside as a mandate. But that is JMHO.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 04:46 PM
Quote:
It would require a major realignment of professional and economic power on the supply side.

Third, on the health insurance facet, the president would like to develop a well-functioning market for individually purchased health insurance, as an alternative to the employment-based system which covers most insured non-elderly Americans.

There now is such a market, but it covers only a small fraction of non-elderly Americans, primarily because it is highly fragmented and, moreover, in most states pegs the individual’s insurance premiums to that individual’s health status. To reform this market, the president would establish a National Insurance Exchange.

This can be thought of as the analogue to a farmers’ market on which competing insurers offer their products, subject to a set of regulations that make transactions in the market transparent and honorable, and the competition among insurers fair.

A major contentious issue here is whether the insurers competing in this market should include a newly established public insurance plan like Medicare, but for the non-elderly.

Quote:
It would also disseminate information from what should be called “cost-effectiveness analysis,” but, as was discussed in earlier posts, has been constrained to be mere “comparative effectiveness analysis” (see this and this for more on this subject).

Finally, to make all of these pieces work harmoniously together — toward the social goals of improving the health status of Americans by providing all of them with access to timely care, and of protecting their budgets from undue inroads of medical bills — there would have to be a whole set of additional government regulations, mainly on the health insurance industry.
From one of my previous links:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...c-health-plan/

Quote:
Germany has one of the best health care systems in the world, providing its residents with comprehensive health insurance coverage. The health insurance reform 2007 requires everyone living in Germany to be insured for at least hospital and out-patient medical treatment.

The options available to you for health insurance while living in Germany are the government-regulated public health insurance system, private health insurance from a German or international insurance company or a combination of the two.
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/insurance.html

Quote:
This is the normal health care cover that most Germans have. Essentially, you pay a fixed percentage of your salary to an insurance company and your employer does the same. Then, the insurance company provides you with health cover.

The percentage varies from one part of the country to another. For example, in Konstanz, which is a popular retirement destination, large numbers of old folk are subsidised by those in work and the percentage is high. Also, if your monthly earnings are above (currently) DeM6300, you only pay the percentage on that first DeM6300.

This is a much more extensive scheme than the UK and that sounds good until you consider a few things:

You are paying for it yourself. If you are contracting, then any employers contributions that you pay are coming out of your own money.

The scheme is actually rather more comprehensive that you might ever want or need and remember, you are paying for it!

There are some benefits for which you are unlikely to be eligible even though you are paying for them.

If you are earning a good income, you may well find that you are paying an awful lot of contributions.

In the Krankenkasse, highly paid single people are subsidising poorly paid people with large families.

The main alternative to the Krankenkasse is the Privatkasse. This is a private scheme where you pay an amount linked not to your income but to your health outlook. So, if you are old, have a poor medical history or a large family, you will pay more than a young single person.

If your income through a German employer is higher than a certain level, you are permitted to leave the Krankenkasse and join a Privatkasse. In the Krankenkasse scheme, you pay a fixed percentage of your income and so, young healthy single workers end up subsidising the old, the sick, the unemployed and those with large families.

This ability to opt out of the need to subsidise those other groups is the main appeal of the Privatkasse scheme. There is of course a drawback. Once you enter the Privatkasse, you are not allowed to go back into the Krankenkasse scheme. So, you have to be certain that you can fund your private cover for the rest of your life.

Rather than the pooled social fund structure of the Krankenkasse, the Privatekasse is an insurance scheme and so your premiums will increase as you age or as you aquire dependants etc.

When you are in employment, your employer must match your contribution to the Privatkasse scheme but, after retirement, you have to pay for the whole deal from your pension or other resources.

As with the Krankenkasse, you need to be an employee of a German company or a self employed person in order to join the Privatkasse scheme.
http://www.jpoc.net/countries/german...anschemes.html

classicman 05-03-2009 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562490)
Medicare is a government run plan.

The Federal Employees plan is a government administered plan....with a variety of choices from among private providers, depending on if the employee wants a Chevy or a Cadillac.
... and how cost effective are they?
What are the positive & negative attributes of each?
How do they differ from the current independent plans available?
Why cannot those people without insurance become covered under one of those plans?
Why do we need another Gov't run/administered program?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 PM.
Page 2 of 51 1 2 345678912 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.