Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by classicman

Good luck with that Merc. These are politicians/lawyers we are talking about here.

I tried to answer the question about Medicare costs and how cutting Medicare Advantage subisides to insurance providers does not mean a cut to seniors..in fact, what the bill does, in effect, is eliminate much of the two-tiered system (basic Medicare + Medicare Advantage) by cutting payments to M-A providers and "pushing" some "enhanced" services back to the basic program. This will particularly benefit seniors in rural areas.

And I tried to answer the question about controlling premium costs through greater competition (and regulation) provided through the Insurance Exchange that will be tied to relative average costs in each market in the country and will require industry concessions in order to particiate in the Exchange.

If you guys dont buy it, thats fine with me.

If you think all of Merc's endless partisan editorials are more accurate, hey, thats fine too.

And if Merc wants to represent himself as the great "consumer advocate"...great, more power to him.

I have said repeatedly, folks should read and listen to all sides, then decide on their own.

But dont think you can bully and bullshit me into playing your game.

[classicman]

Reflux - I was talking about the congressmen/women, but if you feel as though my statement applies to you as well, then feel free to defend yourself as needed. BUT, Please don't lump me into any of your neat little boxes. I won't fit your preconceived notions. ktxbai.

Originally Posted by classicman

Reflux - I was talking about the congressmen/women, but if you feel as though my statement applies to you as well, then feel free to defend yourself as needed. BUT, Please don't lump me into any of your neat little boxes. I won't fit your preconceived notions. ktxbai.

I call it like I see it..but the bullying bullshitter was directed more at "Mr Consumer" Merc or Merc the Plumber? Mr. Everyman?

[classicman]

Redux,
I apologize if you interpreted my comment as directed at you. It was not.
I've posted twice in this thread in the last 5-6 pages (83 posts). I haven't been following the subject close enough to make anything other than an occasional offhand comment. Again - sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux,
I apologize if you interpreted my comment as directed at you. It was not.
I've posted twice in this thread in the last 5-6 pages (83 posts). I haven't been following the subject close enough to make anything other than an occasional offhand comment. Again - sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.

No problem....a misunderstanding all around.

Look at it this way, if you will.

IMO, Merc is like a harmless little puppy who thinks he is a tough pit bull....so I really didnt mind his incessant nipping at my heels if it made him feel like a big dog wanting to play with the big boys, even though he had little or nothing of his own to contribute to the game (although he sure knows how to cut and post the opinions of others more than any big dog of any persuasion that I have ever encountered). But eventually, it just became too damn annoying and I had to flick him away with a shove of my foot...and you got hit in the crossfire (sorry about that).

Yeah, the above description is my arrogance on display, although I like to think of it as self-confidence and standing behind what I believe...and I suspect Merc feels the same way about his beliefs (perhaps with a few more expletives directed at those who might challenge his "sources" and "analysis").

Anyone following this discussion has probably had more than enough of Merc and me. In the grand scheme of things, neither of our opinions amount to a hill of beans ...read and listen to more than one side of the issue and make your own decisions.

But if I see more puppy poop from the lil critter, I'll point it out.

Added:
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has voted 14-9 for the Baucus bill (the least appealing to me), the game really begins. Merging the two Senate bills comes next, then the even greater challenge of reconciling it with the House bill.

But ask yourself this....why is the insurance industry reportedly preparing to spend $millions on ads (in addition to the face-to-face lobbying) opposing the bill over the next few weeks if it has so much to gain?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

No problem....a misunderstanding all around.

Look at it this way, if you will.

IMO, Merc is like a harmless little puppy who thinks he is a tough pit bull....

So you would rather resort back to the name calling rather than answer the question I have repeatedly posted to you. Ok. Have at it. But you still can't address the hard questions I have asked as you have attempted to blow smoke up our asses and at the same time defend the current Demoncratic Bill.

so I really didnt mind his incessant nipping at my heels if it made him feel like a big dog wanting to play with the big boys, even though he had little or nothing of his own to contribute to the game (although he sure knows how to cut and post the opinions of others more than any big dog of any persuasion that I have ever encountered). But eventually, it just became too damn annoying and I had to flick him away with a shove of my foot...and you got hit in the crossfire (sorry about that).

Good God you sound like you have a narcissistic personality disorder. Does it prop up your ego to not have a straight discussion about one aspect of the bill being proposed so you resort to this kind of a response?

Yeah, the above description is my arrogance on display, although I like to think of it as self-confidence and standing behind what I believe...and I suspect Merc feels the same way about his beliefs (perhaps with a few more expletives directed at those who might challenge his "sources" and "analysis").

Damm! that is the most honest response I have heard from you in months. Good work. Sorry if you don't like my occassional choice of delivery.

Anyone following this discussion has probably had more than enough of Merc and me. In the grand scheme of things, neither of our opinions amount to a hill of beans ...read and listen to more than one side of the issue and make your own decisions.

Wow, that is two times in two pages you almost sound normal.

But if I see more puppy poop from the lil critter, I'll point it out.

Ahhhhhh.......... back to the name calling.

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has voted 14-9 for the Baucus bill (the least appealing to me), the game really begins. Merging the two Senate bills comes next, then the even greater challenge of reconciling it with the House bill.

True dat.

But ask yourself this....why is the insurance industry reportedly preparing to spend $millions on ads (in addition to the face-to-face lobbying) opposing the bill over the next few weeks if it has so much to gain?

Because like big Pharm and some others they have much to lose as well. And if the Demoncrats had balls they would make sure that the stealth tax of passing on the costs to those who already have insurance would be prevented in any bill. That or they need to regulate the industry like any other public service. Don't get me wrong. I am against big business, but these half-way measures do not address the core issues.

Now you can continue with your name calling as you dodge my straight forward questions. Enjoy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I tried to answer the question about Medicare costs and how cutting Medicare Advantage subisides to insurance providers does not mean a cut to seniors..in fact, what the bill does, in effect, is eliminate much of the two-tiered system (basic Medicare + Medicare Advantage) by cutting payments to M-A providers and "pushing" some "enhanced" services back to the basic program. This will particularly benefit seniors in rural areas.

You have stated it but you have so far been unable to back it up with hard data to prove that is what is going to happen. You have ignored the fact that providers may just refuse to accept Medicare patients, as many already do, in larger numbers, further reducing access to care and increasing wait times. The largest fall out is that the bill pushes these costs back onto seniors and the predictions among many experts, Redux you are not one of them, state that service will be decreased or eliminated from through the loss of Medicare Advantage and if they want them they will have to pay for them. In otherwords they will not be available in the "basic program" at all. If they were why do you think Congress came up with the plan to gain savings by cutting the program? It is not cost shifting, it is cost elimination.

And I tried to answer the question about controlling premium costs through greater competition (and regulation) provided through the Insurance Exchange that will be tied to relative average costs in each market in the country and will require industry concessions in order to particiate in the Exchange.

There is little concrete data to support the idea that an insurance exchange will actually work.

If you think all of Merc's endless partisan editorials are more accurate, hey, thats fine too.

Look back at the majority of my links they are from a spectrum of sources. Some partisan, the majority are not and many come from mainstream sources.

And if Merc wants to represent himself as the great "consumer advocate"...great, more power to him.

I don't represent one side, the current Demoncratic one. I represent many of the other sides. None of them partisan unless you want to say that anyone not supporting the Dems is partisan.

I have said repeatedly, folks should read and listen to all sides, then decide on their own.

Wow... common sense trys to rear it's ugly head.

[TheMercenary]

Is there anyone who believes that the new Healthcare Bill will reduce the budget deficit by 81 billion dollars?

I am really interested in someone other than Refulx giving a thoughtful response on the issue.

Anyone?

[TheMercenary]

You guys all do realize that the "bill" voted on by the Senate Finance Committee is not really a bill that has language anyone can read. It is merely a concept. Not only does a bill formally have to submitted but then we get to see what people will try to tack on at the last minute.

[TheMercenary]

The continuing lies about "transparent" looks at the legislative process...

WASHINGTON - As Congress prepares to consider historic changes to the nation's health care system, Democratic leaders are balking at supporting a change in the rules that would let the public see the bills' texts 72 hours before a vote.

An unusual coalition of conservatives, watchdog groups and a handful of Democrats has joined the push by Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., to put the 72-hour measure into a binding rule for the House of Representatives. Similar efforts in the Senate haven't gained much momentum.

House Democratic leaders have pledged transparency before. In their 2006 campaign book, in the "integrity" section, they vowed that legislation would be available to the public 24 hours before "consideration" of final versions.

On some recent big bills, that hasn't happened, however. On Feb. 12, the 1,100-page, $787 billion economic-stimulus plan was made public at 10:45 p.m. EST and brought up in the House 13 hours later.

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, several measures had been adopted to make the legislative process more transparent, such as posting amendments' texts online before consideration.

Pelosi also said last month that she was "absolutely" willing to put the health care bill online 72 hours in advance but that she wouldn't back legislation forcing her to do so.

"The vast majority of bills that have been considered by the House have been online for weeks and will continue to follow this process," Elshami said. Elshami didn't respond, however, when asked why Pelosi won't back Baird's bill.

Baird vowed to keep pushing.

"It's great what she said about health care, but it hasn't happened yet," he said. "The problem is that over the last decade or so, the more important the legislation, the less time we've had to read it."

continues:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/77468.html

[TheMercenary]

One of the many elephants in the room that are not being addressed. Who says that anyone is going to take all these patients when the reimbursement is low? Well, few will. Not so fast.

October 22, 2009
Democrats Lose Big Test Vote on Health Legislation By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.

The Medicare bill has become a proxy for larger issues in the debate over legislation to overhaul the health care system.

Mr. Reid said the bill, by averting big cuts in physician fees, guaranteed that doctors would continue accepting Medicare patients. But since none of the costs were offset or paid for, Republicans said it was fiscally irresponsible, and some Democrats said they shared that concern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/he....html?_r=1&hpw

[TheMercenary]

And yet basic payments are going up and this is before the Demoncrats cut out Medicare Advantage.

October 20, 2009
Basic Medicare Premium to Rise 15% Next Year By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The basic Medicare premium will shoot up next year by 15 percent, to $110.50 a month, federal officials said Monday.

The increase means that monthly premiums would top $100 for the first time, a stark indication of the rise in medical costs that is driving the debate in Congress about a broad overhaul of the health care system.

About 12 million people, or 27 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, will have to pay higher premiums or have the additional amounts paid on their behalf. The other 73 percent will be shielded from the increase because, under federal law, their Medicare premiums cannot go up more than the increase in their Social Security benefits, and Social Security officials announced last week that there would be no increase in benefits in 2010 because inflation had been extremely low.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to approve a bill, already passed by the House, to block the scheduled increase in Medicare premiums.

“We are in tremendously difficult economic times, and seniors are being hit particularly hard,” Ms. Sebelius said. “The last thing seniors need right now is a substantial increase in their Medicare premiums, and many seniors will see such an increase if no action is taken.”

Among those who face higher premiums next year are new Medicare beneficiaries, high-income people and those whose Medicare premiums are paid by Medicaid. Premiums can be as high as $353.60 a month, or more than $4,200 a year, for Medicare beneficiaries who file tax returns with adjusted gross income greater than $214,000 for an individual or $428,000 for a couple.

The higher premiums will impose “an additional and significant burden” on states, which help pay Medicaid costs, along with the federal government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/he...tml?ref=health

[SamIam]

Among those who face higher premiums next year are new Medicare beneficiaries, high-income people and those whose Medicare premiums are paid by Medicaid. Premiums can be as high as $353.60 a month, or more than $4,200 a year, for Medicare beneficiaries who file tax returns with adjusted gross income greater than $214,000 for an individual or $428,000 for a couple.

My heart bleeds.

[TheMercenary]

Sure, as long as someone else pays your bill right?

[TheMercenary]

An audio clip of Paul Krugman speaking on health care reform at Hunter College on July 16, 2008. It’s a long clip at ~5:00 (unedited). How to turn the public option into a single payer system over 5 - 10 years.

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2009...gman-Audio.mp3

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2009...Transcript.pdf

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/21/...ive-new-audio/