Jump to content

Healthcare Compromise


ydoaPs
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to a Fox News / Opinion Dynamics poll I just noticed on Google News, 54% of Americans now prefer that Congress do nothing on the issue (it was less than half in a poll by the same group six months ago). 57% oppose all current proposals to reform health care. Only one in three favor the current proposals.

 

IMO this is our political system at work -- most people think the system is broken, but simply don't trust Congress to fix the problem.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mr. Skeptic, we should find out what else it does aside from the mentioned changes, but with the changes give it I don't like it either.

 

on a sort of related note, This article written by David Goldhill was fairly interesting and brought up some good points - it's a fairly long read, but essentially blames the process of health care, as opposed to the insurance providers or health care providers themselves, to our crappy healthcare system.

 

I kind of agree with the gist though, stop going to the doctor and having insurance pay for things we could easily pay for, like a single physician visit, which should not be ludicrously expensive for something as simple as a checkup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this "compromise" is terrible and an insult. Lump me into the "I'd rather they do nothing than drop the public option" category.

 

This bill is just a handout to the insurance companies.

 

Highlighted is the real beneficiaries of the current proposal. Why? Because what would happen to our capitalist system if someone actually believed there was something that could be bought or sold where "profits" should not be "maximized"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the democrats have lost the battle, IMO. The concentration should be on reducing costs, but the perception is that they just want to throw more people into the system and possible force prices down or just hope for the best. The economy and debt load is too big a focus to worry about anything other than reducing costs - including alternative energy. As long as the majority feel that certain actions are a cost, they will not support it.

 

I would love to see huge resources go towards alternative energy - NASA, military contractors, etc. Our call should not be to revisit the moon or goto mars or destroy the world three times behind a shield, but to obtain clean energy.

 

As for healthcare, I think the opposite approach might work best. Simple, low tech, low cost methods. Encourage employers to provide exercise and diet plans and insurance companies to adjust individual premiums based on certain habits.

 

Nah, screw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this "compromise" is terrible and an insult. Lump me into the "I'd rather they do nothing than drop the public option" category.

 

This bill is just a handout to the insurance companies.

 

My sentiments exactly...I thought the whole thing started off bad, until I saw it "being improved". :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder sometimes if the simplest path to a complete overhaul of the insurance industry and a return to a logical, capitalist system of health care would be to immediately adopt single-payer health care ala Canada or France. :D

 

Contrarily, I wonder if we did that how long it would be before everyone was asking "why didn't we do this sooner?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder sometimes if the simplest path to a complete overhaul of the insurance industry and a return to a logical, capitalist system of health care would be to immediately adopt single-payer health care ala Canada or France. :D
Does anyone have a figure on what each person would have to pay per month into Medicare if they removed the age requirement? I keep hearing this would be a great system but how does it compare to what we pay monthly for Insuracare-type services?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a figure on what each person would have to pay per month into Medicare if they removed the age requirement? I keep hearing this would be a great system but how does it compare to what we pay monthly for Insuracare-type services?

 

Trouble is that those who have bought our political system will not stand by and allow something like that to happen. Unfortunately, voters are pretty easily influenced by misinformation and innuendo, especially when it promises to be the easiest way of doing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a figure on what each person would have to pay per month into Medicare if they removed the age requirement? I keep hearing this would be a great system but how does it compare to what we pay monthly for Insuracare-type services?

 

From what I can gather, medicare premiums per patient have risen slower than the average private insurers, but they also demand lower payments to hospitals, etc. No free lunch there, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can gather, medicare premiums per patient have risen slower than the average private insurers, but they also demand lower payments to hospitals, etc. No free lunch there, apparently.
But Medicare has much lower administrative costs from what I hear, and they pay the hospitals sooner with fewer protests over procedure. Not waiting 90-120 days on payments is a big plus for most businesses, doctors included.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicare is not a sustainable system and will need reform very soon in the coming years or the costs of the program are going to skyrocket.

 

I say this as a bleeding heart liberal.

 

That may be the impetus required to actually overhaul the system, rather than just seeing that everyone has to pay for health insurance profits, whether they use the system or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicare is not a sustainable system and will need reform very soon in the coming years or the costs of the program are going to skyrocket.

 

I'd say any system that requires one set of the people to finance a free entitlement for others will not be sustainable in the long run....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say any system that requires one set of the people to finance a free entitlement for others will not be sustainable in the long run....

 

Why? I assume you're conjecturing that any tax-funded entitlement will be abused by its recipients until it becomes unsustainable. Can you actually demonstrate that's the case with any kind of evidence, or is this more of a "gut feeling" sort of thing?

 

I would contrarily posit that the unsustainability of Medicare is due to recent changes in the program, largely at the behest of Republicans. Republicans created a new and rather fiscally unwise entitlement with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which forces Medicare to pay retail prices for prescription drugs. And yes, you are reading that right, Republicans created an entitlement, possibly for the first time ever? I'm not certain, if someone could fact check me on that it would be great. Regardless, this is an entitlement to which I am adamantly opposed, because it's an entitlement where our government sold out to the pharmaceutical lobby.

 

As the largest buyer of prescription drugs on the planet, Medicare cannot negotiate for bulk discounts, as other foreign prescription drug entitlement programs like Health Canada can (this is why drugs in Canada cost a fraction of what they cost in the US, and why seniors flocked to Canada and Mexico for their drugs before this huge handout to the pharmaceutical companies was passed). If you haven't already guessed, I blame this largely on the pharmaceutical lobby and its effects on certain politicians, namely Congressman Billy Tauzin, who fought vociferously against bulk discounts as part of the legislation. After passing the legislation, he left government entirely, and is now President and CEO of PhRMA, the leading pharmaceutical trade group and lobby in the US. In other words, in his role as congressman Billy Tauzin sold out the entire country at the behest of the pharmaceutical lobby, and after successfully passing the legislation considered his role as a legislator done and moved on to rake in the cash as head of the organization he sold out our country too. In a more equitable world, he'd be in jail for such shenanigans.

 

This isn't a problem with entitlements. It's a problem with lobbying and corporate control of our government. And it's taxpayers and the national deficit that will suffer. A graph from the conservative Heritage Foundation:

 

alc_022_entitlements_3col_c.jpg

 

Note the Heritage copy on the graph is likewise retarded. Ostensibly, it's not Social Security and Medicaid whose costs are skyrocketing. It's Medicare that's taken a sudden turn for the worse.

 

Entitlements aren't inherently bad. However, I am much more worried about corporations and trade groups robbing the public trust than Joe Sixpack.

Edited by bascule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/

 

Howard Dean says: kill it and start over in the House.

 

I agree.

 

They probably should scrap it, because I think that if this bill fails to reform health care it's going to cost Democrats every bit as much as scrapping it would. But there's no point in starting over, because they're not going to bring conservative/moderate/centrist Democrats on board. They just are not. This is not a Joseph Lieberman problem, it's a failure to recognize that 2008 was not a mandate for the enactment of a progressive agenda.

 

The fact that they're unwilling to scrap it suggests another bad choice by the Obama administration. They need to step back and build up a string of victories and then use that to leverage a real health care reform bill. Which reminds me -- I want to go on record that I think we will see Pelosi and/or Reid to lose their leadership roles in 2010.

Edited by Pangloss
clarified the first sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much posturing going on! Why propose an amendment to import cheap drugs from Canada, knowing it would get immediately defeated, instead of attacking the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act bascule mentioned, which seems to be one of the bigger stumbling blocks to cost-effectiveness? I see this as a calculated diversion, something both sides can point to and say either, "We jumped all over THAT one!" or "Well, we tried and failed".

 

The White House meeting came as Democrats awaited a final cost analysis from the Congressional Budget Office on the latest version of the bill, and the full Senate defeated an amendment to permit the importing of low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9CKBO9O0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can conclude that this is not a healthcare compromise, it is a compromised (in the military sense) healthcare bill. It may still be better than nothing, but passing it would mean a proper healthcare bill would be delayed for a very long time, so probably best to scrap this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.