The GOP Plan » Forum Post by Mumblefratz

My appologies for the large text... it was simply copy/pasted and didn't change size.

You do realize your link is from a biased site right?

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/06/facts-about-american-health-care-revisited/

In the age of the internet... one must check the funding backgrounds, viewership and bias of "sources" before considering them "fact"

Here is an example - this pnhp "study" was a stats study from 5000 inquiries sent out to AMA members. First of all, not all doctors are AMA members, and the membership has been declining in recent years, due to its LEFT leaning bias. Secondly, close to half of those surveyed responded. So this subset was subseted and then assumed to be the vast majority? I think not. Thirdly, survaying is a science in getting what you want said. The wording of surveys has been proven to be very influential in how people respond.

I find it funny in the age of information, so much "fact" is biased, falsified or downright fabricated.

You do realize your link is from a biased site right?

And precisely how have you demonstrated it's bias other than a bald faced assertion? At least I gave you a link. The crap you spouted was itself nothing other than bald faced assertion without any kind of reference. Where is your source and what biases do they have?

First of all, not all doctors are AMA members

So what? And your point is?

and the membership has been declining in recent years, due to its LEFT leaning bias.

Any kind of source, proof or even a vague hand waving argument as to the left bias of the AMA?

And even if you were to demonstrate some kind of left bais that still leaves substantial arguments with significant points that are brought out by the article that need to be addressed other than by the simple claim that the group is biased.

I find it funny in the age of information, so much "fact" is biased, falsified or downright fabricated.

Then you must find yourself very funny indeed.

In which of those two situations is the person expressing their view taking a bigger risk in speaking their mind?

OK I see the lack of symmetry but your point still eludes me. So OK it's doesn't take extrordinary courage for the WH to suggest that Fox's coverage are a pack of lies and distortions. But the fact that this doesn't require courage doesn't necessarily make their claim false.

Here is just a small listing of blogs, doctors posts, ect. That i pull from. I also have personal friends within the buisness. This is first hand accounts... not internet spew. But here is your internet stew for ya

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/doctors-favoring-national-health-care.html

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8334&posts=1

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00346/comment-page-1

http://minx.cc/?post=289952

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/5/201025.shtml

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=407

http://www.newser.com/story/69360/how-obama-wooed-and-won-the-ama-with-a-228b-gift.html

http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/27/the-evil-mongering-of-the-amer

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/07/08/ama-president-rohack-responds-to-recent-health-reform-watch-blog/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-lobbying-ama-0912-0913sep13,0,7112379.story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr.-daniel-palestrant/the-biggest-risk-to-us-ph_b_229068.html

Is that a large enough list?

I do not openly list quotes and sources because this is a forum. It is my opinion, backed by facts that i have collected over the years, that the old organizations have lost their focus. The government has limited and mandated too many things in the medical comunity, which is what led us to the position we are in today. If Health care were able to be subject to the same market systems that every other buisness is - the costs would be kept in check by market competition.

Why do people not understand how the overall market works?!?

And a correction, the unemployment rate is now at 10.2% - the highest in 26 years. And this is under a socialists atmosphere....

Is that a large enough list?

I'll put them on the top of my to do list (just after clean the toilet). I may even actually check out your huffpo link as I do go there often,

And a correction, the unemployment rate is now at 10.2% - the highest in 26 years. And this is under a socialists atmosphere....

In the last two recessions unemployment was a lagging indicator peaking approximately 18 months after the recession officially ended. In other words the unemployment we're seeing today is the result of conditions that occurred more than 8 months *before* Obama took office which was squarely during the Bush administration.

What Obama and the Democrats have specifically done is to extend unemployment benefits *over the obstructionism of the Republicans* so that people are not hurt as badly as they otherwise would be. He has also provided subsidy's for COBRA coverage to give people a fighting chance to keep their health insurance while unemployed.

Why do people not understand how the overall market works?!?

I fully understand how the overall market works and how an ideal market conceptually works under capitialism. I simply object to the fact that my insurance company is financially incented to want me to die quickly (and therefore cheaply) once I do get sick.

The rest of the civilized world recognizes this.

Don't confuse neocons for conservatives, ever. The neoconservative was an abberation dating back AFTER Ronald Reagan. The practice of deficit spending and a proactive military are two key pieces to this. This meme eventually evolved into the current state today. Neoconservative is simply a politically correct term for reactionary.

There's a short version of this clip more widely circulated that's pretty much limited to the exchange that resulted in the former congressman walking off the set. However I find this clip that shows a good portion of the previous conversation as well as what happened after to be far more informative.

Note the thinly veiled reference to "the enemy within" and the implication of what you do with an "enemy within." But no this is not an attempt to incite violence. Of course not.

It shouldn't be surprising that Bart Stupak, the author of Stupak Amendment, is a member of "The Family." If interested see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization).

This is part of the reason that I think America has far more to fear from Christian fundamentalists than it does from Islamic fundamentalists.

Mumblefratz

reply 181

Why do people not understand how the overall market works?!?I fully understand how the overall market works and how an ideal market conceptually works under capitialism. I simply object to the fact that my insurance company is financially incented to want me to die quickly (and therefore cheaply) once I do get sick.

The rest of the civilized world recognizes this.

The rest of the 'civilized world' also has far fewer people per country and different cultural values and history than the United States. And I highly doubt that the current health reform will do anything but increase taxes, considering that the public insurance rates are likely to be higher than private insurance. And will give the federal government more reason to make 'sins taxes', which obviously make occasional luxuries more difficult for the middle-class to obtain.

I'm going to keep repeating it, but the United States spends about $147 billion yearly on obesity-related health issues. It'd be cheaper and far more effective to encourage a campaign of healthy living than to pass a tax-raising health care plan.

The rest of the 'civilized world' also has far fewer people per country and different cultural values and history than the United States.

Hmmmm......... sounds like a few good suggestions to me........

And I highly doubt that the current health reform will do anything but increase taxes, considering that the public insurance rates are likely to be higher than private insurance.

We've been over this tax debacle before, haven't we. The public rates higher than private rates thingy is new, though.... it makes no sense considering that the public option has no profit margin.

And will give the federal government more reason to make 'sins taxes', which obviously make occasional luxuries more difficult for the middle-class to obtain.

Ummm.... they're called "sin taxes" for a reason, you know. Some more taxation on those coveted "middle class luxuries" like tobacco and hard liquor would probably do the countrly some good.

I'm going to keep repeating it, but the United States spends about $147 billion yearly on obesity-related health issues. It'd be cheaper and far more effective to encourage a campaign of healthy living than to pass a tax-raising health care plan.

That's assuming a "campaign of healthy living" hasn't already been launched, and that it would actually make a significant dent in obesity-related health problems....... and that you actually have accurate numbers......... and that such a campaign wouldn't be decried as socialist communist Nazi fascist affirmitive-action population-control big-government tax-and-spend Godless anti-American tyranny by the tea-party crowd........... should I go on?

The rest of the 'civilized world' also has far fewer people per country and different cultural values and history than the United States.

OK. But so what? A higher population should result in economies of scale. Plus we're not talking about huge order of magnitude differences in total pop. The US is at 308 million, France has 62 million, Germany 82 million, Great Britian 60 million, Italy 60 million, Spain 40 million and together they total the same approximate population as the US. That's hardly so different that corresponding systems simply cannot apply.

By what proof other than by vehement assertion are you claiming that systems that work for 60 to 80 million won't work for 300 million? It certainly isn't intuitively obvious to the casual observer.

If you mean by cultural values that people in major European countries are not brainwashed to have an irrational fear of something merely because some knuckle dragging nimrod calls it socialist then perhaps you're right. However most rational people believe that similar programs like Social Security, Public Education and Medicare are functions that are properly performed by the federal government. Once Universal Healthcare eventually does come (I wouldn't doubt it will still take another 50 years to get there) people will wonder why it took so long to do something that so obviously needed doing.

the United States spends about $147 billion yearly on obesity-related health issues. It'd be cheaper and far more effective to encourage a campaign of healthy living than to pass a tax-raising health care plan.

Uh. The heathcare problem is a $2.5 trillion dollar problem. We could simply kill all US obese and it wouldn't solve the problem. Certainly it can and should be addressed but it's not going to zero nor even if it did would anything change significantly.

So next you'll say add in tort reform and I will agree with this as well but again this is really an insignificant portion of the problem. The total medical malpractice tort costs in 2007 were $30.4 billion, again even if reduced to zero this doesn't come close to solving the problem.

I'm going to keep repeating it

Of course you will because you have nothing new to say.

We've been over this tax debacle before, haven't we. The public rates higher than private rates thingy is new, though.... it makes no sense considering that the public option has no profit margin.

There's more to it than that. In fact at about 5.5%, health insurance industry profits are one of the smaller industry "overheads" that do not apply to a federally administered plan. The total of all health insurance overhead is 31% from which profit comes but also Marketing, Advertising and most insidiously Lobbying.

Still all in all I'm not satisfied with the lip service to a public option as it exists in the recently passed house bill. From what I've heard the estimates is that by 2019 there could perhaps be as much as 2% of the country enrolled in the so called "public option" which is not even tied to Medicare reimbursement rates. This is surely going to be weakened further after being reconciled with whatever final version the senate passes with either a state opt-out clause which would certainly eliminate any kind of tenth amendment "states rights" type of constitutional challenge (not that is a serious worry in any case) or some kind of trigger.

I could live with the states opt-out because once it's a proven success any state foolish enough to opt-out in the first place would come crawling back but I absolutely do not support a trigger.

But I fear the point is moot from my perspective because a public option that is *not* tied to Medicare reimbursement rates is unacceptable to me. Also turning the healthcare issue into a trojan horse for a pro-life agenda isn't tolerable either. So in fact I am no longer in favor of healthcare reform as it's currently proposed.

Let's wait another 10 years, by then many more Americans will be bankrupt by medical bills, will die each year because they don't have insurance and rates will have doubled but that's OK. I make enough to afford it, plus I'll be on Medicare in 7 years anyway. If the Republicans don't give a fuck about the middle class then why should I? Plus a good percentage of that middle class would rather cut off their own dicks to spite themselves and you can't protect folks from themselves. Give them 10 years and perhaps they'll see the error of their ways. I do find it too bad that a majority needs to suffer because of the stupidity of a minority but you can only do so much.

But eventually there will be no choice whatsoever. You can lengthen people's misery and you can obfuscate and delay all you want, but sooner or later there will be single payer healthcare for all in the US.

Why should the public option be tied to Medicare reimbursement rates? It is supposed to be competing with private insurance, it needs to do the same negotiations every other insurance plan does. Oh wait, I forgot that the purpose of the public option was to be non-optional, everyone should be on it and giving it anti-competitive advantages would help do that. Medicare doesn't *negotiate* rates, it *dictates* them, and as we can see in this reform, political pressure can be used to arbitrarily lower those reimbursement rates. If they actually were negotiated even an act of Congress couldn't unilaterally lower them.

Even with dictated prices, Medicare is losing $200 billion this year - the difference between what the taxes and premiums collect and the cost of care it provides comes out of general revenue and is just rolled into the deficit. Now expand that to cover the whole population and see what the deficit ends up being. At the beginning of the Bush administration that was closer to $100 billion, due to medical inflation, no growth in revenue sources, and the prescription drug benefit. Still, we're talking the equivalent of bailing out the auto industry every single year for the last decade.

In reality, insurance is the lesser of the two problems in healthcare today, and this reform isn't even giving lip service to addressing the bigger issue - cost of care. Insurance reform may even out how much each person pays, but the total isn't going to go down until the cost issues are addressed.

Insurance reform may even out how much each person pays, but the total isn't going to go down until the cost issues are addressed.

You're right in that.

But, how do you bring down the cost? R&D takes a lot of money. And those costs can only be recovered by charging the end users. If it is run by a free market, it is recovered on the front end - directly through the cost of individual care. If it is run by the government (socialism/communism), it is recovered on the back end - through taxes.

The only question is, which is more cost effective in the long run?

The question of how many people are 'covered' is moot, because there is only so much 'care' available in either case. It is either rationed on the front end, or the back end - but it will be rationed, no doubt about it.

And given the governments record with cost effectiveness, I'd bet on the free market approach to be most effective.

Right now there is a shortage of primary care doctors. If the government takes over and restricts what they can earn, how much worse will that shortage get? After all, no one can be forced (or enticed) into the health care field with the promise of years of very difficult education, long hours and ultimate responsibility - for the reward of maybe being able to feed yourself.

This whole concept of 'health care is a right' is so stupid.

If that is so, then every health care worker is simply a slave to everyone else that wants what they are forced to provide - at whatever compensation 'the whole' deems adequate.

Government imposed restrictions will never bring about true competition in the market; they will only squeeze everyone to the point of extinction.

maybe she thinks FOX is bigger than the White House?

Like Ron Stewart so brilliantly stated: "The WH is supposed to fuck up power. FOX is supposed to fuck up truth.

I generally dismiss CBS/NYT/Wash Post as bogus and skewed.

Yeah, and most probably he considers FOX Opiniotainment (I refuse to refer to them as "News") as the epitome and source of all truth. *ROFL*

Medicare doesn't *negotiate* rates, it *dictates* them, and as we can see in this reform, political pressure can be used to arbitrarily lower those reimbursement rates.

A number of points all of which I've made more than once before but obviously for no apparent purpose.

First off reimbursement rates cannot be lowered *arbitrarily*. There still must be some correspondence to reality or as you and all the conservatives are quick to point out no healthcare supplier can long stay in business if total income does not at least exceed slightly total expenditures. It's certainly possible that a limited number of procedures could be priced below market value as long as in the end there is some reasonable level of profit to be made.

Of course as I've also repeatedly said, finding the proper point can be a bit of hit or miss but as long as there are reasonable feedback mechanisms then the proper point will be found before complete disaster happens. I'm sure that doctors, hospitals, clinics and diagnostic services companies will be quick to let the public and government know about pending problems. I doubt we will have to discover there's a problem only after 1 million doctors have left the field.

Secondly as we all know there's a lot more to the healthcare issue than simply the health insurance industry. Tying the public option to Medicare reimbursement rates gets the best price possible for the public option and puts the most downward pressure on the aforementioned doctors, hospitals, clinics and diagnostic services companies that would otherwise be unaffected by a simple change in how health insurance operates.

Even with dictated prices, Medicare is losing $200 billion this year - the difference between what the taxes and premiums collect and the cost of care it provides comes out of general revenue and is just rolled into the deficit.

Yet another point I've repeatedly debunked. There are a large number of reasons that Medicare is losing money. One part of this issue is the boondoggle of Medicare Part D which is a $500 billion dollar cost that was in essence Bush's gift to the Pharmacutical industry. This is of course the talking point that the right uses to say that the plan cuts $500 billion of seniors benefits which is totally bogus (as Sarah Palin would say).

Also Medicare currently subsidizes hospitals for the shortfall in revenue due to patients that cannot pay one way or another. Once everyone is covered with insurance these subsidies can be eliminated.

Now expand that to cover the whole population and see what the deficit ends up being.

No one is proposing anything like this. First off as I mentioned the estimate is the public option as it's now constituted would only cover 2% of the US population by 2019. This is a long way from the *whole* population. Also this 2% is sure to be reduced even further in the senate with either a state opt-out or put off entirely by a trigger. Finally the payments that seniors make are not intended to come close to covering Medicare's effective insurance premium cost. The public option would have people pay a premium that is sufficient to cover all outlays. Therefore increases in public option subscribers do not increase any budget shortfall.

In reality, insurance is the lesser of the two problems in healthcare today, and this reform isn't even giving lip service to addressing the bigger issue - cost of care. Insurance reform may even out how much each person pays, but the total isn't going to go down until the cost issues are addressed.

I think it's closer to 4 problems if you want to get specific. PhaRMA, medical malpractice awards, doctors, hospitals, clinics and diagnostic services company costs along with the insurance industry *all* need to be addressed sooner or later but we simply will *never* do anything if we require that *everything* needs to be done at the same time.

We've essentially watered down health insurance reform to the point of uselessness. Imagine the fight if we tried to do everything at once. This is why healthcare reform under Clinton failed. But like I said we can at least tie the public option to Medicare reimbursment rates which would put downward pressure on a lot of these costs.

I hate to repeat myself but it seems I have no choice as you simply continue to repeat the same flawed arguments over and over again.

As for the pros and cons of public option health care compared to private health insurance: I could write a novel about it, living in a country where both forms exist for ages, but I don't have the time.

In short the most interesting (and most costing) part of public option version here is that kids are automatically insured with their parents at no extra cost. Another one is that unless you make additional payments you get but the most basic health care there is. Mostly, if you file for special treatment it will be denied unless you present good reasons.

But it's still better than nothing at all. And except for the monetarial aspect for the doctors and clinics (who see their incom dwindling because they won't get as much cash from public health care as from private insurance companies) I really can't see why so many people are seeing it as being bad and a step to socialism - save communsim. MY country for sure is NOT any of it...

And NO it is NOT financed through taxes.

Were does freedom fit into all this?!?

I do NOT want some bureaucrat telling me what to eat, where to go, or how to live. Its none of the governments dam buisness.

You all can blather on about cost saving this and inequality that - but it will not matter. Life on planet Earth has never been about being fair.... It's been about survival of the fittest.

The reason costs have gotten out of hand is due to you "entitlement" people and the government meddling in the private sector. This great experiment in freedom called the United States will not last long if it's citizenry will not grow a pair and do their own work. What happened to the American bada$$ attitude of the 1950's? We could do anything, and now we're suckling the teat of the rest of the world?!?

Grow up you lazy bunch of Yanks, and educate yourselves. The Constitution was written for such a time as this.

Were does freedom fit into all this?!?

The bill itself is un-Constitutional at the least. The government cannot fine and/or imprison citizens for refusing to "buy" their brand of health insurance. Of course, the left doesn't see anything but "free" health care out of this. It's useless to explain anything else to them.

The bill itself is un-Constitutional at the least.

You'll have to stop bitterly clinging to this old, outdated and obscure document. The constitution.

Yet another point I've repeatedly debunked. There are a large number of reasons that Medicare is losing money. One part of this issue is the boondoggle of Medicare Part D which is a $500 billion dollar cost that was in essence Bush's gift to the Pharmacutical industry. This is of course the talking point that the right uses to say that the plan cuts $500 billion of seniors benefits which is totally bogus (as Sarah Palin would say).

Your number is off by nearly an order of magnitude. Part D is only about $61 billion a year, not $500 billion. Although I can't say you're wrong about it being financed almost entirely by general funds instead of people paying into it. The fact is, if the people paying into it had to foot the whole bill, they wouldn't gain anything from having it because it wouldn't be any different from private health insurance.

I do NOT want some bureaucrat telling me what to eat, where to go, or how to live.

And you won't. All they can do is refuse to pay for more expensive treatment if you don't watch what you eat, if you smoke or if you enjoy extreme sports.

And how is that fair? If i have the money, I should be able to have whatever treatment I want, no? Why should I be limited because i chose to live in a LEGAL fashion? Last i checked it is not illegal to be over/under weight, smoke, drink or live vicariously. It is unhealthy, and it will shorten ones life... but it is an individual right, not the governments.

The Constitution is the one document that is different from all other forms of government... it sets limits on government. It is not outdated, it is not "obscure" and it is the single thing that keeps this great American experiment heading the right direction. The day you all trade freedom for security or "equality" is the day democracy dies.

And how is that fair?

This...... from you......... hehehehehehe........

If i have the money, I should be able to have whatever treatment I want, no?

Sure, but who says you can't? The alarmist right gets so hung up on the "public" part that they seem to forget about the "option" part....

The Constitution is the one document that is different from all other forms of government... it sets limits on government. It is not outdated, it is not "obscure" and it is the single thing that keeps this great American experiment heading the right direction.

The constitution is a great piece of political thought, but it's not perfect. Remember, according to the original interpretation of the Constitution, if you had dark skin you were only 60% human. Besides, nowhere does the Constitution even mention healthcare.

The day you all trade freedom for security or "equality" is the day democracy dies.

Where were you when Bush the 2nd was ramming the "PATRIOT Act" through Congress? Just wondering....... Besides, where are we losing freedom, and where are we gaining security? Last time I checked, this was an argument about medical coverage.