RE: HEALTH CARE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 1:50:43 PM)

Democrats walk a careful line on healthcare - Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington -- Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) is in a tough spot when it comes to overhauling the nation's healthcare system. Major hospitals in his largely rural district have told him the bill pending in the House would cripple them financially. But Boucher also believes that the need for change is painfully obvious: When a free medical clinic was offered in a remote area of his district, some 2,700 people showed up.

The bill, which took a big step forward with the Friday committee vote, is designed to expand health coverage for the poor, cut costs, and improve coverage for people who already have insurance. It would also raise taxes on high-income people, mandate that businesses with more than $500,000 a year in revenue provide health insurance for their employees, and establish a government-sponsored health insurance option.

For some politicians, the choice is simple: In Flint, Mich., unemployment is close to 30%, and Democratic Rep. Dale E. Kildee embraces government efforts to help cover the uninsured.

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) says the many senior citizens and military veterans in his district are already enjoying the benefit of federal health programs, but some hardly seem to realize it. He cites an 80-year-old man who told him to "keep the government out of healthcare" -- even though Medicare had paid for his successful heart surgery 15 years ago.

Altmire, one of only three Democrats who voted against the healthcare bill in the House Education and Labor Committee, said the cost-cutting changes made last week in negotiations with conservative Blue Dogs would help make it easier for him to sell the legislation in his district, a GOP-leaning region he won from a Republican incumbent in 2006.

Democratic leaders are arming their rank and file for conversations with constituents. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, met with first- and second-term lawmakers recently to brief them on the issue.

His political advice: Define the issue yourself -- before your opponents do it for you.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-healthcare-democrats3-2009aug03,0,7701227.story?track=rss




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 2:44:54 PM)

Barack Obama holds back the miracle cures

Many expect health reform to end up being the American president’s ruin, but he has a plan to avoid the trap

The latest popular narrative for the Obama presidency is that it is foundering on the treacherous rocks of healthcare reform, just as Bill Clinton’s did.


The Chosen One’s numbers are sliding back to normal levels; the public is warier of his plan and what it might do to its future healthcare; the huge costs of the current system — crippling private industry and public finances — are largely hidden from most patients, who don’t realise their wages have not risen for years because all the money is going to pay their company-provided health insurance; and there’s a special interest group organised to prevent any big change from occurring at all. Barack Obama has failed to offer a clear and compelling plan himself and so seems at the mercy of congressional chaos. It will all end in tears — and ruin his entire presidency.

This narrative has drama — who doesn’t want a story of Obama crashing to earth? — but little realism. First, let’s be real about the scope of the challenge. America’s healthcare industry is the size of the British economy. It’s immensely complex, and restructuring it is a gargantuan legislative undertaking. The idea that a president could just impose a “solution” in a month or two has no relation to how Washington functions. In fact, I’d argue that Obama’s passive approach — outlining principles while leaving the rest to Congress — is a positive rebalancing of the American polity.

More to the point, this Congress has already enacted some serious healthcare reform. There was a vast expansion in provision for uninsured children in the stimulus package; alongside it were funds to research the comparative effectiveness of various treatments and medications (critical for informed decisions about cost controls); and money for shifting the US healthcare bureaucracy into electronic records to allow patient information to be more portable. That’s more than George W Bush ever did.

It’s also highly likely that there will be a large increase in coverage for uninsured adults this year. Something will pass. The Democrats cannot face a 2010 congressional election with majorities in both houses and fail to deliver on a bare-bones universal healthcare programme they ran on in 2008. It will happen. Insurance companies will be barred from denying care to people with pre-existing health conditions. The working poor will be subsidised to buy their own insurance. My other solid prediction is that the Republicans will describe it all as a government takeover that will lead to mass euthanasia, compulsory abortions, ruthless rationing or some such hysteria.

But here’s the rub: even if Obama gets all this through, it will not address the fundamental problem. Which is that the cost of healthcare keeps
going up — because of an ageing population, a revolution in medical and pharmaceutical technology and a structure that rewards doctors for prescribing an unlimited amount of medication and surgery. If you look at the current house bill with the most steam behind it, this is what the Congressional Budget Office says it will do to costs: “The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8% per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade.”

That means almost no industry will exist in the US in the next decade except healthcare. And that’s because every other industry will go bankrupt trying to pay for it. How does GM compete when it has to pay a medical bill that German car companies largely leave to the government?

The Republican party has refused to offer a serious counter-proposal, or push for competitive reforms that might make Obama’s plan better. Why? It doesn’t want him to get the credit. It would rather obstruct him and run the 2010 election campaign calling him a socialist. So it’s up to the conservative Democrats — the so-called Blue Dogs — to make the deal. They’re a prickly bunch.

At some point, Americans will have to pay more, get less and adjust to a more collective system. Just not now. As for Obama? He’ll get credit and also take some flak. He will be blamed for any reduction in healthcare provision and choice; but the public deep down know that the status quo is unsustainable for much longer.

So they’ll see him as their community organiser for more pragmatic change, not the saviour who will end all their problems. And the one person who won’t mind that new role will be the president himself, brought back to earth, where all incremental progress is made. He clearly sees his presidency in an eight-year stretch. He’s laying the groundwork; he’ll take what he can get; and soon enough he’ll be back for more.
And why exactly is that a definition of failure?

www.andrewsullivan.com

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6735927.ece




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 2:58:29 PM)

sounds like a good idea, surprised they don't already.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 3:01:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain


That means almost no industry will exist in the US in the next decade except healthcare. And that’s because every other industry will go bankrupt trying to pay for it. How does GM compete when it has to pay a medical bill that German car companies largely leave to the government?




Hard to give a writer much credibility when he poses a rhetorical question that shows such a complete misunderstanding of who pays the medical bills under socialized/quasi-socialized health care.




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 3:10:56 PM)

Excuse me, but Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, so you're criticizing one of your own people when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about. I actually like him as a conservative and I like him now whatever he has become, hopefully it is objective and the truth.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 3:17:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Excuse me, but Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, so you're criticizing one of your own people when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about. I actually like him as a conservative and I like him now whatever he has become, hopefully it is objective and the truth.


I dont give a shit whether he's a conservative or not his rhetorical question makes absolutely no sense.

There is no difference between GM paying out health care dollars to an insurance company and Mercedes Benz paying taxes to the German government who turns around and pays it out to the state contracted providers and insurers. Health care isnt "free" under socialized medicine.




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 3:19:07 PM)

Health Care Reform A Priority For People With Arthritis

The Arthritis Foundation supports health care reform, which provides universal and affordable health care for the 46 million Americans living with arthritis.

American families, both insured and uninsured, are struggling with rising health care costs - and the number of uninsured is rising. Due to the nature of chronic disease, people with arthritis struggle to pay for physician visits and for the increasing costs of multiple medications and other care that is necessary to properly manage their disease.

"Arthritis is the nation's most common cause of disability, though many people are not aware that it is a very serious, painful and life-altering disease," said Amy Melnick, chief public policy officer for the Arthritis Foundation. "The burden of medical debt excessively falls on patients with chronic diseases, and studies show that out-of-pocket costs are rising faster for arthritis than for many other chronic conditions."

In 2007, 28 percent of working-age adults with chronic conditions such as arthritis reported that their families had trouble paying medical bills. Of those, one in four went without needed care, half delayed needed care and 56 percent failed to get prescription medications, because of cost concerns. Prescription costs are hitting harder than ever due to reduced coverage, pre-existing conditions and higher co-pays. These unmet needs put people with arthritis at greater risk for complications and permanent disability.

The Arthritis Foundation applauds the current proposals in Congress for the many provisions that would benefit all Americans, and particularly those affected by a chronic disease or disability, like arthritis. The provisions included for affordability; preventive services; the prohibitions of discrimination based on health status; the elimination of the annual or lifetime limits on coverage; requiring coverage of dependents up to 26 years of age; and the strategy to develop national quality and efficiency standards mirror the principles of the Arthritis Foundation and will greatly improve the American health care system. We support these goals and principles as outlined in the current proposed legislation.

"In our nation, the costs for individual health insurance premiums have risen nearly eight times faster than average incomes. With 45 million uninsured citizens, it is now more important than ever to find ways to make health care affordable and ensure greater access to care for all," said Melnick.

Indeed, unwieldy medical bills contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007, according to a recent study (PDF) published in the American Journal of Medicine, and to half of all home foreclosures as revealed in a similar 2008 Harvard study.

The Arthritis Foundation wants health care reform this year that will improve the lives of people with arthritis and other chronic diseases. We strongly believe that legislative action is necessary to guarantee quality, affordable, essential health care for all Americans.

For more information about the Arthritis Foundation's position on health care reform and to learn what you can do to help yourself and others, visit http://www.arthritis.org/access-to-health care.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158717.php




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 3:23:09 PM)

There may be a difference. I think the reformers are saying with single-payer the government would have more leverage to negotiate a better price than Mercedes. Even though Mercedes is a large corporation it doesn't have as much leverage as the government to bring down costs and negotiate better prices.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 3:25:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

There may be a difference. I think the reformers are saying with single-payer the government would have more leverage to negotiate a better price than Mercedes. Even though Mercedes is a large corporation it doesn't have as much leverage as the government to bring down costs and negotiate better prices.


Which doesnt change the essence of the transaction which was what was underlying his argument, not hypothetical cost savings that may or may not be realized.




Lockit -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 3:43:53 PM)

I am one of those that need the better elements of this health bill... but not at the expense of so many others and I mean expense as in financial and how things are done. I was all for it... for a while there...

On a side note...I was totally misread... I never said a person could not get an MRI with this bill... I said they could not get as many MRI's as it took to find out what was wrong with me, by the right doctor.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 4:10:24 PM)

What did that earlier post say 77% want some form of nationalized health care or health care reform? I guess not many of them are THAT concerned about it:

"Would you pay higher taxes in order to fund health care reform?
No 88%
Yes 12% "





rulemylife -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 5:29:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

What did that earlier post say 77% want some form of nationalized health care or health care reform? I guess not many of them are THAT concerned about it:

"Would you pay higher taxes in order to fund health care reform?
No 88%
Yes 12% "



Source?









tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 5:46:18 PM)

He rarely gives up his sources... lol




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 5:57:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

What did that earlier post say 77% want some form of nationalized health care or health care reform? I guess not many of them are THAT concerned about it:

"Would you pay higher taxes in order to fund health care reform?
No 88%
Yes 12% "



Source?







that bastion of conservatism, Yahoo news.




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 6:22:58 PM)

uh uh willbe. try posting a link. you do this far too often. you want your sources believed.. post them.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 6:51:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

uh uh willbe. try posting a link. you do this far too often. you want your sources believed.. post them.



It was one of those pop up polls you can only vote in once. It was actually more favorable than the Fox News poll where 95% say no.




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 6:53:26 PM)

so sorry... not acceptable




willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 6:55:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

so sorry... not acceptable

\

I could care less what you find acceptable. You arent the fucking arbiter of truth.




tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 7:07:09 PM)

ah, but, you expect us to accept what you say as truth... it simply doesnt work that way




Lucylastic -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 7:12:58 PM)

This just gets more ridiculous. 




Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125