Universal Health Care...

[hblask 1]

The Obama administration continues to treat us as if we are too stupid to understand what is going on:http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelFCan...p;comments=trueThe Obama administration's offer to drop a Medicare-like health insurance option for Americans under age 65 is neither a surprise nor a comfort, because it does nothing to change the administration's dangerous plan for health reform. Rather, it is a tactic designed to change the debate – one that fits nicely within the administration’s broader strategy of deception. On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a new government program modeled on Medicare is “not the essential element” of reform, and that the president is open to a government-chartered “co-operative.” It was inevitable that the administration would back away from a new Medicare-like program, the demands of left-wing House Democrats notwithstanding. For weeks, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has been telling the world that such a program would never pass the Senate: "There are not the votes in the Senate for the 'public option,'" Conrad recently told Fox News Sunday. "There never have been." The only question was when the president would distance himself from the idea. President Obama chose this moment because he is losing the debate on health reform, and he needs to change the subject. The administration no doubt hopes that the conversation will be about how the president has moderated his approach to health reform. One problem: this offer doesn't make the president's health plan any more moderate. It is an empty gesture, because the administration can now push for Sen. Conrad's "co-op" proposal as a substitute. And a government-chartered health care "co-operative" is simply another government health program. The definition of a cooperative is a health plan governed by its enrollees. Since a government chartered co-op won't have any enrollees at first, it will be governed by—guess who?—the Secretary of Health and Human Services, just like any other government program. In June, Sebelius told Bloomberg.com, “You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan.” In July, President Obama himself told Time magazine, “I think in theory you can imagine a co-operative meeting that definition” of a “public option.” On a practical level, it makes no difference whether a new program adopts a "co-operative" model or any other. The government possesses so many tools for subsidizing its own program and increasing costs for private insurers—and has such a long history of subsidizing and protecting favored enterprises—that unfair advantages are inevitable. So even if Democrats promise that someday the new program will become a co-op, what they mean is: "We're going to create that new government health program, just as we intended all along. But we will turn it over to the members in, oh, five years or so. We promise." That makes Sebelius’s announcement yet another cynical ploy to achieve health reform by deceiving the public. President Obama keeps saying you'll be able to keep your current health plan, even though the Congressional Budget Office says that isn't true. The president says a new government program wouldn't drive private insurers out of business, even though his allies expect it to do just that. He says he wants choice and competition, yet proposes insurance regulations that would drive most private plans out of existence. He doesn't want the government to take over the health sector, just like he didn't want to take over General Motors. The administration pretends to distance itself from a new government program by embracing…another new government program. The only administration sympathizer who isn't a master of deception may be New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who describes Obamacare this way: “Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America.” I suppose there’s a reason Paul Krugman is not the White House press secretary. The president’s approach to health care reform hasn’t changed at all. All he has done is tried to distract attention from how dangerous and unpopular his approach really is.

[hblask 1]

It's been covered before, but here's a good summary. So what's the real number? Why won't the proponents of socialized medicine tell the truth?http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opi...4-202006/286080No single topic drives the health care reform debate like the number of uninsured Americans, variously numbered in speeches and ads at 45 million, 46 million, 47 million, or even 50 million. Unfortunately, most of what we think we know about the un insured is wrong. For the record, according to the latest figures from the Census Bureau, 45.6 million Americans currently lack health insurance. This is actually down slightly from the 47 million that were uninsured in 2006. However, those numbers don't tell the whole story. For example, roughly one quarter of those counted as uninsured -- 12 million people -- are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), but haven't enrolled. This includes 64 percent of all uninsured children, and 29 percent of parents with children. Since these people would be enrolled in those programs automatically if they went to the hospital for care, calling them uninsured is really a smokescreen. Another 10 million uninsured "Americans" are, at least technically, not Americans. Approximately 5.6 million are illegal immigrants, and another 4.4 million are legal immigrants but not citizens. Nor are the uninsured necessarily poor. A new study by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that 43 percent of the uninsured have incomes higher than 250 percent of the poverty level ($55,125 for a family of four). And slightly more than a third have incomes in excess of $66,000. A second study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it. And most of the uninsured are young and in good health. According to the CBO, roughly 60 percent are under the age of 35, and fully 86 percent report that they are in good or excellent health. Finally, when we hear about 45 million Americans without health insurance, it conjures up the notion that all of those are born without health insurance, die without health insurance, and are never insured in between. The reality is that most people without health insurance are uninsured for a relatively short period of time. Only about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for six months or less. Notably, because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance. None of this is to suggest that many of those without health insurance face do not severe hardship, or that we shouldn't try to expand health insurance coverage. But it does mean that we might be able to deal with this problem in a much more targeted way, rather than having a huge and expensive new government program. For example, young, healthy, and well-off people might be more inclined to buy insurance if it cost less. That means ending regulations, like community rating, that increase the cost of insurance for younger and healthier workers; eliminating costly mandated benefits; and creating more competition by allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. And if people are losing their insurance when they lose their jobs, we should move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. That means changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker's taxable income. However, workers purchasing health insurance on their own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant tilt toward employer-provided insurance. Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or, better still, large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own. We can then look at those people who may need some kind of subsidy to better afford insurance. Doctors know that if you don't get diagnosis correct, you are not going to prescribe the right treatment. The same is true with health care reform. In trying to expand coverage to those who need it, let's make certain we understand the facts.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

The big story on the radio stations in dallas here today was that someone who shows up on caller ID as "community advocate" with a houston area code is calling senior citizens to sell them on obamacare. Apparently, and I will remain skeptical until someone gets them on tape even though this is apparently coming from quite a few seniors, those who say they don't support it have been called racists and one man said they told him they were going to report him to the FBI.You stay classy democrats.

[Jeepster80125 0]

One aspect of our healthcare that obama wants to remove are high deductible savings accounts and consumer driven plans. The reason these plans are working is because it makes consumers much more aware of how their healthcare dollars are being spent. Obama doesn't like these types of plans because he'd rather have everyone dependent on a public system.Consumer Driven Health Care PlansFor about the last 10 years the United States has been experimenting with consumer driven health care plans. CDH plans typically combine a high-deductible insurance policy with a health savings account or health reimbursement account. CDH plans now cover well over 8 million individuals, up considerably from 4.5 million in 2007 and these types of plans continue to grow rapidly. So what have been the results?The American Academy of Actuaries has recently produced a review of high quality research on these plans. Here are their conclusions:

The primary indications are that properly designed CDH plans can produce significant (even substantial) savings without adversely affecting member health status. To the knowledge of the work group, no data-based study has emerged that presents a contrary view.

Cost-savings in the first year of instituting a CDH plan relative to a traditional plan ranged from 12% to 21%, remarkably large figures. Moreover, costs appear to grow more slowly under CDH plans than under traditional plans. The knock on CDH plans has always been that they could cause people to avoid preventative case. Not only does this appear to be false it's the opposite of the truth:

Generally, all of the studies indicated that cost savings did not result from avoidance of inappropriate care and that necessary care was received in equal or greater degree relative to traditional plans. All of the studies reported a signficant increase in preventative services for CDH participants.

Especially interesting is that some of the studies found that CDH plans resulted in better compliance with evidence-based care.Note that these results come from CDH plans instituted within the current system. One would expect that the general equilibrium effects of consumer driven health plans would be even larger than the partial equilibrium effects, see Singapore for evidence (but consider Tyler's remarks). The American Academy of Actuaries is a credible organization but I would like to see more of the underlying data. All of the studies the AAA reviewed used credible methodologies, controlled for selection and were based on substantial data but the major studies so far have been industry funded.It's remarkable that in the current debate over how to control health care costs so little attention is being given to the important results of our 10-year experiment with consumer driven health plans.

[hblask 1]

It's remarkable that in the current debate over how to control health care costs so little attention is being given to the important results of our 10-year experiment with consumer driven health plans.

Obama is paying attention to them, he wants to eliminate them. If free markets work, how will he achieve his legacy of a government takeover of 1/7 of the economy? Best to kill them before the news gets out.

[hblask 1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...al-toilets.htmlThousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds. The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000. Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full. Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

• 63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;
• 117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas;
• 115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;
• 399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.

Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year. Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services. One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust. Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full. Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas. Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places. 'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full. 'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS. 'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds and by shutting down maternity units.' The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more. However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the Government's blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters. At the same time almost half of all midwives are set to retire in the next decade. Jon Skewes, a director at the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'The rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to look at why this is happening. 'There is no doubt that maternity services are stretched, and that midwives are working harder and harder to provide good quality care. However, we know the Government is putting more money into the service. 'The key now is to make sure this money is spent by the people controlling the purse strings at a local level.' Care services minister Phil Hope said: 'The number of maternity beds in the NHS reflects the number of women wanting to give birth in hospital. Giving birth can be unpredictableand it is difficult to plan for the exact time and place of every birth. 'Local health services have plans to ensure high quality, personal care with greater choice over place of birth and care provided by a named midwife. 'We recognise that some parts of the country face particular challenges due to the rising birth rate and that is why last year we pledged to increase funding for maternity by £330million over three years. 'We now have more maternity staff than ever before and we have already met our target to recruit 1,000 extra midwives by September.'

[gobears 0]

Ok - what do you folks think of the idea referenced in the link below?I feel sorry for his friend although I'm assuming he could have picked up COBRA but probably figured he could do without insurance for a short time period (really bad luck)Health Reform Idea

[strategy 4]

debate aside, it's pretty inexcusable to leave yourself uninsured as this person did.

[hblask 1]

Ok - what do you folks think of the idea referenced in the link below?I feel sorry for his friend although I'm assuming he could have picked up COBRA but probably figured he could do without insurance for a short time period (really bad luck)Health Reform Idea

Author lost credibility in the first few paragraphs by repeating several very, very tired lies. Next.

[gobears 0]

debate aside, it's pretty inexcusable to leave yourself uninsured as this person did.

I can sort of understand it - when people change jobs for example and have a couple of weeks between jobs. Most probably don't carry insurance during that time.Also, COBRA can be very expensive depending on your employer's plan. It's often cheaper to go out and get your own insurance. Maybe he was setting out to do that and figured what's a few weeks...

[mk 11]

John Stossel: Give me a break.

sigh. that exactly ^^

jfc when the colossal intellectual charlatan john f stossel is the posterboy of your argument, you should re-eval/kill yourselves

[strategy 4]

I can sort of understand it - when people change jobs for example and have a couple of weeks between jobs. Most probably don't carry insurance during that time.Also, COBRA can be very expensive depending on your employer's plan. It's often cheaper to go out and get your own insurance. Maybe he was setting out to do that and figured what's a few weeks...

I think I unintentionally went a semester without coverage freshman year when I dropped down to six hours. had I somehow hurt myself, I don't think they would've covered me because I wasn't full-time. I understand how these things happen, but I'm gonna strive to make sure I never end up like that dude.

[hblask 1]

jfc when the colossal intellectual charlatan john f stossel is the posterboy of your argument, you should re-eval/kill yourselves

Let's see, a guy who started out liberal and actually paid attention..... or a guy who has never had a clear thought in his life because he's too busy raking in paychecks he earns from telling people who evil it is to earn lots of money.Yeah, I'll take John Stossel over Michael Moore any day.

[mk 11]

Let's see, a guy who started out liberal and realized conservatives were far easier to sway via superficial, half-dimensional demagoguery and also a better revenue source.....

i fixedYOUR POST

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

So, this whole thread and your response is limited to the credibility of one of the people whose commentary is included? Someone as smart as you is going to go with the OJ defense?

[mk 11]

So, this whole thread and your response is limited to the credibility of one of the people whose commentary is included? Someone as smart as you is going to go with the OJ defense?

in truth, i briefly considered writing something thoughtful about the proposed plan and how it's vastly different from what people think it is and how i think the administration has done an absolutely terrible job of explaining the program to the public. now i simply hope they avoid political disaster by finding enough common ground to passing SOMETHING before the end of the year and force the Rs to filibuster (which i believe they will).and yes, sorry for adding nothing constructive and taking potshots at things that are mostly irrevelent, but i just fucking hate that kingbutt stossel so much. he'd be my front runner for biggest douche in the universe.

[Sal Paradise 57]

mk I really wish you would form a rebuttal to the anti-health care bill argument since that's really the only one I've seen on here, and since the administration's argument of "oh those republicans, they're so stupid, just listen to us" ain't exactly convincing. I'm very much opposed to the bill and the what not as of now but I always like to hear an opposing view to mine.plus, it's not like you're actually gonna make any money today anyways amirite?

[mk 11]

mk I really wish you would form a rebuttal to the anti-health care bill argument since that's really the only one I've seen on here, and since the administration's argument of "oh those republicans, they're so stupid, just listen to us" ain't exactly convincing. I'm very much opposed to the bill and the what not as of now but I always like to hear an opposing view to mine.plus, it's not like you're actually gonna make any money today anyways amirite?

Read this--and I mean really read it--Wendell Potter's testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on June 24, 2009. I find it rather compelling.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Read this--and I mean really read it--Wendell Potter's testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on June 24, 2009. I find it rather compelling.

oh yeah, I've read that recently, but it doesn't really do anything to address the specific bill, just to say "insurance companies are bad because they use less than honest tactics to make profits," and I mean, yeah, of course they do (and which obviously needs to be addressed). but what makes obama's plan good? I've seen a few people on here propose complete and free market style alternatives to a public option that I would think would curtail all of the problems mentioned in his address (vastly simplifying contracts, opening interstate competition, eliminating connections to employers, etc.). so why are those not good options but a government run plan is? that's what I'm looking for.

[CaneBrain 95]

"insurance companies are bad because they use less than honest tactics to make profits,"

the people who want a public option think this statement is the understatement of the century. "Less than honest?" A third party profiting off people's sickness should have to be 100% honest and 100% transparent. The way insurance companies operate is a disgrace.The last person I want between me and my doctor is a claims adjuster. The problem is that a government employee is probably 2nd to last. I would say there is a good chance this whole thing falls apart though.

[DonkSlayer 1]

The last person I want between me and my doctor is a claims adjuster. The problem is that a government employee is probably 2nd to last.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Sal Paradise 57]

A third party profiting off people's sickness should have to be 100% honest and 100% transparent.

well see I think this here is what so much of the disagreement boils down to: some people see it as inherently wrong to profit off of health care while others see it as just another commodity that people have the option to spend the money that they work for on. I'm pretty firmly in the second camp and don't think that any person has any more of a right to health care (except for maybe urgent care and the other super basic moral obligations we have as a society, and yeah, I know this is a big touchy area and also a slippery slope area, quite similar to the abortion issue actually, but I digress) than he or she has a right to a house or a new wardrobe or a ferrari.not to mention, and I'm pretty sure history is on my side here (as is henry who will provide links that I'm too lazy to obtain), that in the long run and as a whole, the free market provides VASTLY better results for commodities trading than any government could ever hope to. it's just that some people are predisposed to find it a little icky to charge people for keeping them alive.

[Jeepster80125 0]

jfc when the colossal intellectual charlatan john f stossel is the posterboy of your argument, you should re-eval/kill yourselves

in truth, i briefly considered writing something thoughtful about the proposed plan and how it's vastly different from what people think it is and how i think the administration has done an absolutely terrible job of explaining the program to the public. now i simply hope they avoid political disaster by finding enough common ground to passing SOMETHING before the end of the year and force the Rs to filibuster (which i believe they will).and yes, sorry for adding nothing constructive and taking potshots at things that are mostly irrevelent, but i just fucking hate that kingbutt stossel so much. he'd be my front runner for biggest douche in the universe.

Sal respectfully asked you to clarify your position on the healthcare debate, and you can't come up with anything better than linking to some Potter testimony?You've been asked to elaborate before and you never do, yet you sit there on your soapbox and claim repubs are idiots and john stossel is a moron. Would you care to read stossel's article I linked to and tell me why you think he's an idiot? Pretty please?I've seen you come into these threads and insult anyone who is against socializing our healthcare system, yet you never discuss why you think the way you do. It's democratic elitism at its finest. Good show. Personally, I think it would be interesting to see why you're so in favor of a public option, but it seems that you are unwilling to explain why we're all idiots. lol.

[Sal Paradise 57]

The last person I want between me and my doctor is a claims adjuster. The problem is that a government employee is probably 2nd to last.

god damn it, I've got work to do, but I've thought about this and want to respond:I understand what you're saying, but I would MUCH rather have to work through a claims adjuster who I have to fight against to get payment from the contract that I personally chose than have what I can and can't have done predetermined by a politician who knows little to nothing about health care in general, and absolutely zero about my personal situation. at least with my own insurance I have a chance to make my own decisions.this also comes back to the need for the clarification and simplification of insurance contracts. the absolute most important condition necessary for a true free market to work is available information. if people are able to easily obtain all the information they could possibly need in regards to what they're buying then we wouldn't have to be afraid of the adjuster, it would all be spelled out for us before we made the initial purchase. as long as insurance companies are allowed to make such convoluted contracts that even THEY can't understand (hello team of lawyers), then there's no way that information on the product will ever be even remotely available. simplify the contract, open the market, allow competition. health care WILL get cheaper and more readily available.

[mk 11]

so why are those not good options but a government run plan is? that's what I'm looking for.

because i'm a pragmatist and those options are fairy-tale libertarian nonsense (like so many other libertarian ideas--wonderful in theory, impossible in practice). a public option for the uninsured while allowing those who already have and like their private carrier to keep everything exactly how it is seems to me the most politically viable and most reasonable strategy, and it's the strategy that ~75% of americans feel is best (this polling data is available everywhere). now, i'm not an economist crunching numbers through models 12 hours a day in order to make an accurate prediction as to what exactly a public option will do to insurance premiums, but i think that simply by observing the amount of pac money the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are throwing at this opposition/disinformation campaign it's quite apparent to me that if this potential legislation would allow them to charge higher premiums or lower the quality of care they provide to their customers, they would be, you know, supporting it wholeheartedly.