Co-ops Maybe we have something here

I think the wheel might have turned in this health care reform debate to something I could solidly get behind.

Co-ops......allowing business to band together to lower the price. Way to go BO. That sounds good to me. No govern run plan but let us do it. No huge taxes or heavy cost(the devil is in the details though).
A large number of business corps banding together to get more for less. Nothing more american than that. Now the failure of one scares me a bit with govern coming in as the savor but we will see how this new twist plays out. Got to do a lot more reading but what do you guys and gals think. This might be a way to bring down costs without the govern mandate or huge tax increases.

It all depends on what a "Co Op" consists of and as of right now it is just an idea being floated since the Public Option is now DOA.

Public option is not yet DOA...don't believe the hype.

A co-op option won't likely save the patients one penny, so I don't see any reason to have it...any progressive worth his/her salt will vote against any bill that doesn't have a public option.

A co-op will just end up being more of the same, with the illusion of having done something...not an altogether unseemly proposition for the right wingers...

Fish on...

Todd

Yup Pelosi will add it back in with another 5 or 6 hundred page amendment to the bill 5 minutes before they are scheduled to vote on what ever they come up with.

Sure maybe they find a way to ram it home in the senate. One way or another they are gonna ram it home though.

Group Health WAS a Co-op until Kaiser bought them out.

Ya know KK, I listened to Congressman Reichart on the radio this morning, his take on things is a little different. According to him the D's aren't allowing any of the R's ideas to come forward. He said they don't even want to hear them. So as I have said many times regarding this topic, both sides are playing their little games. I guess that makes ALL of them a bunch of dickheads.

Today the GOP said "we aren't going to be part of any health care reform" .... as proposed by the Democratic majority.. Isn't that what was said?

Yup, do it with out them, and ram that public option home too. Who cares about the popular support of the people. Go ahead and commit Political Jihad. Good luck though, sounds like the D's are spending a fair bit of time fighting each other right now.

Perhaps the GOP sees how upset people are about Obama's health care reform (not to mention cap and trade) ideas and they don't want to be associated with it. Maybe the GOP sees that enough people are pissed about this and they want to be able to say "it wasn't us" when incumbents get voted out of office because families can't afford their electric bill any more, or because they are paying ALOT more in taxes to provide health insurance to illegals.

I'm just sayin...

Yup that may be true, but in the real world some cockstain lawyer will sue stating that not covering illegals is unfair, and some cockstain federal judge will agree. And if they aren't planning on insuring them why are the D's counting the illegals as part of the 47 million uninsured?

I don't believe that a "public option" allows for fair competition. Obama and others have all said that a public option is the first step on the road to a single payer system and that is where they want to go.

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-...vate-insurance/

I would be willing to support reform and regulation of insurance companies as long as the referee stays out of the game.

Not being Insurance company Board members OR Executives, WTF do you care if Insurance Companies and Pharma stop making Trillions off your misfortune?

And if the Ref stays out of the game, then is there really a Ref? No there isn't

So KK. Are illegals collecting welfare? The answer is yes! They come here have kids, then become eligible to collect through their kids. Is it reasonable to assume that if illegals are eligible to collect welfare that they will also be able to take advantage of any universal health care? The answer is obviously YES! You never answered my question. If the D's aren't planning on covering illegals WHY are they counting them in the 47 Million uninsured that they want to cover?

Irie. There is a big difference between having a referee calling the game and playing in the game.

Executive pay isn't the only issue here. What about the ambulance chaser attorneys who get their clients lottery pay outs for stupid things. Why isn't that being addressed by the dems? Malpractice insurance is one of the main reasons health care cost so much.

Like I said I would support reforming the insurance rules,and would support some sort of federal rate structure. I don't give a rip how the companies use their money as long as they are paying the claims that they are legally required to. If the company does that and the CEO gets a million dollar bonus what do I care?

I've been a Group Health member for 17 years, and it's been a pretty good deal - until last year when we have to pay the usual co-pay or 10% of the actual cost of service, whichever is greater. I'm not sure if I'll stay with them or not. It was pretty good despite the many criticisms leveled against it.

Sg

Irie, the supporters of the GOP have a very consistent habit of voting for GOP "ideals", even when those ideals directly counter their own well-being...it's why there is always some sort of "anti-American" or some other hateful or racist tag attached to it...it actually makes their followers vote against their own well-being as some sort of self-sacrifice for the "American Way"...

Vic, when parties who can't compete have to bow out of the game, that's the absolute definition of "competition"...if competition didn't whittle out the dead wood, then what's the point?

If private insurance companies can manage to provide these things that they are utterly failing at right now...

1. Good care...
2. at an affordable price
3. And do so with no biases or prejudices

...then they'll be able to compete.

If they can't provide as good of coverage, at as good of a rate, to everyone...then they should not be in business.

That's the "free market" that your leaders are always spouting about...until, of course, that very same free market will put them out of business for failing to remember that competitive prices and good customer service are the cornerstones of good business.

They'll adapt...or die.

That is what competition is all about.

The cool thing about it is that if you feel so strongly about paying more for mediocre care...you can keep on doing so, and support those poor insurance companies in their battle to "compete"...until they either do compete, or die.

It's always "all about the money"...until it's their money...then it's "Socialism"...

Fish on...

Todd

KK I think I did answer you. There is a republican bill in congress that no one is talking about. Why? The D's aren't interested, and appear to be determined to do what they want. What happened over the weekend when Obama said a public option wasn't a deal breaker for him? The extreme left wing lost their minds, then the white house back peddled. Anything that gets passed will most certainly contain items that are unpalatable to the R's. So why go along with it? Why not wait and give the old "it wasn't us" when election time comes. Unfortunately that isn't any kind of real leadership. You'll get no argument from me about how lame it is. If both sides are really concerned both sides need to give. So far I haven't seen the D's give, other than the end of life care, and the only reason they gave on that is because they were getting smashed for it. Before ya go there,,, don't try to link me to death panels. I have said over and over that I am not buying into that.

We aren't talking about chump change here. It is estimated that welfare to illegals in California is costing the state 640 million per year. To say there will be "some" taking advantage of the system seems a little idealistic.

KK. I give on the malpractice insurance. Just checked and it accounts for 1 percent of health care costs based on the study I just looked at. Looks like you numbers are a bit higher.

Todd

The problem with the public option is, if it fails they won't let it die the same way a private insurance company would. Is that really fair competition? And Obama has said his goal over time is to drive out the employer based health insurance. Based on that should we expect him to play fair.

Sorry too many of you all at once sure I missed something.

Gee, KK....if all the Glorious Dems just get going they can get 'er done.........right? If you don't need the GOP vote, and can't get things rolling....who's fault is that?

The Co-op idea is, like Todd said, not going to save much, if anything, but may give some an easy way to have some kind of insurance.....it won't help the indigent at all.

The roadblock just might be that people (all the way from the top to the bottom) are waking up to the fact that there HAS TO BE an end to the free ride, and somebody's gonna have to pay the bill. President Printmore's popularity has just begun to suffer.

The R's plan is thus:

1. Oppose anything and everything that comes from anywhere to the left of Atilla the Hun.

2. Refuse to even converse, much less negotiate...then whine about not being "included" in the conversation.

3. Point out that Obama said he'd practice bipartisanship, and blame it on him...failing to not #'s 1 and 2 above.

The beauty of the R's plan is that it is simple (good for their followers), and it encompasses virtually every facet of every issue.

It can even be boiled down to one word for those who can't grasp the nuances of the above...

No.

That's about it.

I think the D response to that should be to tell 'em to go to Hell. They fukked everything up royally over the past eight years, and won't even man up enough to admit it...they got all their asses thrown out of office because of it...because the people don't want any more of their "ideas"...

Either they play ball, or the game goes on without them.

They can whine about it all they want, but if they really have a problem with it, they're six or seven years too late to fix it now...and really, the problem is their own, not anyone else's.

They caused it, and they can suffer the consequences of it.

Cool thing is that them suffering the consequences of their childish and irresponsible behavior is good for the country.

Fish on...

Todd

Vic, the public option is...an option. No one has to sign up for it, and the only way it will drive the private insurance companies out of business is if it does it better...if it doesn't, why would anyone choose it, and how could it drive the privates out of business?

Competition is a two way street...and no one is going to shove anything down your throat, no matter what the loudmouths are yelling on TV, the radio, and at the town halls...

Increasing options, increasing competition, driving up services and quality, while driving down prices...

Is there really any better way to define the "free market" and the "American Way"...?

Note: Yes, there are lots of other ways to define those things, but most are cynical and angry...the "real" and pure way to define it is just as I did, at least that's what I think.

Fish on...

Todd

bwp

It is house bill 3218. I haven't read any of it. The gist of what I have read about it is that it allows competition across state lines, allows individuals to purchase through alternate pools(other than employers), and gives tax credits that can be paid directly to insurance providers. My point was that the R's have tried to participate in the debate, but the D's have the hammer and they are using it liberally (pun intended).

KK I don't think you give me enough credit. If I wasn't interested or at least a little open minded I wouldn't take your verbal beatings and attempt to participate in the debate.

Sorry guess we will have to agree to disagree, but government setting regulations and not being accountable for at least a break even, with bottomless pockets to back up any sort of "budget shortfall" is not competition. And Obama said he wanted to run the insurance companies out of business and take the country to a single payer plan. What has changed? Why shouldn't I take him at his word on that?

3200 is structured so the public option leads to a single payer system.

Canada ranks 5th in life expectancy, the US ranks 35th.

It's because the US has more people, right, Bill..............err, Hank.

Just to keep the pot stirred.................

Sounds as if Co-ops are going to get it from both sides. That makes them sound better and better.
Single payer system........isnt that what canada has..............isnt that the system that is going down the crapper right now. I think their health sec stated it best when she said the system was "sick".
I dont get why opening up beyond state lines is a bad idea. That allows most people to shop around and opens up the options. Co-ops that increase the # of pts will give more bargining power to those in the co-op. Coverage of preexisting is a must and I agree we need to have the govern mandate that if needed.
Far as comp from the govern run plan.......that is not comp at all. No private comp can compete with the govern on a one on one basis. It is a joke to say they could or even bring it up. The govern has endless pockets via eating up tax payer dollars(which it can just raise if it runs short or "barrow" to increase debt) and can change the rules as they wish. That would be like asking junior high basketballers to compete with the Lakers when the refs are playing on the Laker squad.
And as far as bloated insur comps, well our bloated govern consumes far more and give less back than any insurer. Yet they still seem to have no profits and alway run in the red. Lets all not forget that the govern does not create wealth, it consumes it. It consumes our countries wealth and this plan will consume a lot more(especially when it is made "budget neutral" via a big arse tax increase).
Lastly, if our govern was a corp they would have files chapter 11 a long time ago. But they dont have to "compete" with anyone. They get to just run up debt and have us, our children and grandchildren pay for it. They find a way to take in trillions and cant keep a budget that brings them into surplus. Now that we are trillions down we should handover to them a huge portion of our countries econ so they can create a new entitlement they cant pay for(similar to SS and medicare). Sorry, not for me. So lets knock a little of the bloat out of them before we start pointing to bloat in private insurances companies(not that I am a fan of them either as I pay thousands a month for myself and staff and sem to get little in return).
Lastly, I understand increasing the pool very well to bring down costs. I also understand that forcing the young to pay insur when they can't afford is kinda B.S. Should everyone be insured.......I believe they should but..........Mandating they do is crap. It is ever single americans god given right to make just as bad of choice as they see fit. I grew up with no insurance and luckily never had a problem. Luckily. But would not have had the money to pay for it at the time if forced. You really want to kill this bill we should show that mandate to all those young that will be forced or penalized to pay for something they dont want.

O'no KK telling us about tort reform again. More lib spin as well. Let me tell you something with no spin from a actual point of view of someone that deals with this day in and day out. You can make the judgement.
The total cost of 2% is right off the white house talking points home page. And total cost are misleading. This is how it works in the real world. Not the KK or whitehouse spin world. When you look at the total costs of the entire system it is misleading. That includes all the govern B.S., all the insuance b.s. and everything from procedures to paperwork. The direct cost for someone in private practice is huge as it is the Dr. him or herself that pays for it(malpractice insur). And I will tell you directly that is a hell of a lot more than 2% of my income to pay for it. Thousands a year and that cost is passed to the consumer. Larger hospitals work differently but those of us in private fee for pratices must pass that large expense on in higher costs or we would be out of business. Fix it and the cost for private services will drop more than 2% guarenteed. Separate out the the bureaucatric B.S., goveern waste, medicare, and it is much larger than the figure directly costing Drs than that given by KK with CBO cut and paste.
Now this is in a fee for service practice and not govern or insurance driven. A little different in those practices but I just needed to give a different point of view on tort reform.

A friend of mines wife just had a baby a couple weeks ago. Normal delivery, wife stayed in hospital 48 hours. Cost: $20,000. Friend's hearsay is that 45% of that $20 K was for the doctor's and hospital's malpractice insurance. Don't know if it's true or not, but an astonishing price IMO. My kids total cost was $1200 each in 76 and 79, and I had no maternity insurance at the time and paid out of pocket.

In birthing mal ins is so high that a substantial number of Doc's will not do OB anymore. The other factor is your ins rates are normally negotiated with hospitals and providers by the Ins company. Seldom said is providers factor in the cost of those who do not or can not pay. All over the board on where / how much with location. Hospital's absorb a huge cost in ER's as uninsured use them as primary care providers.

It is really and amazing system we have now as many unseen cost are simply passed on to those that have ins or pay out of pocket. One of the solid arguments for reform really as we already pay for it in a round about way with bunch of folks falling through the cracks.

Just for the sake of conversation does anyone know how the Hawaiian system works? They have a lot of out patient clinics that seem to function reasonably well.

just read your part of the thread. Stir the pot time. So we don't mandate young people or anyone have health care ins. I can buy the infringement on personal liberties argument right after you explain who in the hell is going to pay their bills? If everyone got a itemized bill from the providers for actual cost of the services then prorated cost of malpractice insurance, provider cost for uninsured and unpaid services for those who can't pay imagine what would happen?

Lets take it one step farther for the sake of argument. Imagine tort reform, coupled with insurance reform to deal with cherry picking and preexisting conditions, medical service reform so that providers could only charge you for the services they provided you directly, then require mandatory coverage with federal subsidies for low income based upon the ability to pay. Not a chance in hell it would happen as lawyers, advocates, just every interest group in existence would come unglued. Infringing upon freedoms, my god your killing the working poor, what no massive court settlements,........I think the list of one liners would fill pages.

It is what it is and a pig is a pig. Follow the money on both sides of the issue, both lib & conservative as both have been bought and paid for, legally of course.

Oh.

So it's just about cancer these days, not how long you live. Here in the US, we must really cure the cancer so you can die of something else.

I missed the memo.

Please forgive.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Canucks aren't gonna live forever. BTW, the US is #50 in life expectancy, 5 spots ahead of Cuba who is revered for their health care. Canada is #8, a whopping 3 years of longer life on average, BFD. The only reason they die later is that due to their single payer system, the wait to see the coroner and be declared legally dead is really long, sometimes as long as 17 months.

Thats funny right there I dont care who you are.

It IS a BFD DB... 'cause it CLEARY demonstrates that a socialist, communist, fascist, death panel judgin', granny killin', care rationin', wating list havin' single-payer government healthcare plan can actually WORK!

KK....Arguing cost of running a medical practice or practices with you reminds me of........we lets use an analogy we can all get behind here.

It reminds me of a texas bass fisherman walking out on the Hoh in Feb in his new simms waders and jacket just out of the box one hour ago and explaining to all the old boys there how they are doing it all wrong as he read in Field and stream the only way to catch a steelhead is with a nightcrawler.

Malpractice cost are directly passed to consumers. At my offices and every office around. Not a sole I dont know out here in the sticks, we all do it. These are fee for service practices and not large hospitals but facts are facts. Take it for what it is. We can argue about how much cheaper insur would be with reform or not......that depends on malpractice comp used, but as they come down so would cost out of pts pockets. I know lawyers support your side of the isle but the issue is true, I live it everyday.

What kind of tort reform would you like to see put in place then doc? A cap on jury awards?

Under the appeals process, that pretty much happens now. Almost NEVER is the full amount awarded by a jury during a malpractice case payed in full.

Case in point is the infamous 'McDonald's hot coffee award'... where the woman supposedly got 4 million dollars from spilling hot coffee on herself. She ended up with a lot of medical bills and about $20,000 when all was said and done.

By capping award amounts you take away the very safeguards that the Tort system was designed to provide.

The whole 'frivilous lawsuit' wingnut bullsh!t is just that too! If the lawsuit truly IS frivolous... it gets thrown out before it even makes it to trial.

The one thing I could support is capping attorney's fees at billable hours plus 25% of any award... instead of the more than 40% that it's at now if it goes to trial.

What would I do to reform the legal side

#1. Use experts in the same medical profession to decide if malpractice was committed. We know what crap work is. We know who screwed something up and what was something unavoidable. No more juries of the only people not smart enough to get out of jury duty deciding something on emotion they have no idea about.
#2. No caps. But let people who know something about it decide what is reasonable. No emotional idiots.
#3. No lawyers. From either side. Let each explained what happened, review the records, bring in experts if needed and cut out the scumbags that take 40% for someone elses suffering adn those advertizing to sue on our nigthly commercials.
#4. The whole award goes to the pt or the pts family. See above why.
#5. Those who offend multiple times.....no more practicing. In any state. Some people just aren't cut out for it adn should not practice on the public.

That is it. Simple and if someone truely screws up the money goes to the correct person. Save money all the way around in court costs and the what not. Should bring down prices.

KK.....somethings the fed does well and somethings it does not. I try to keep the fed out of state rights issues but they stomp all over them anyway. Allowing insurance comp across lines would not be much of a stretch after the last 70 years of increased fed control. So be it.
Now I know I will hear it from right and left so go ahead. Luckily I am going home and will not have to read about how dumb I am until tomarrow. Night all.

The public option and saying people can keep their insurance if they want is disingenious when it says multiple times in 3200 that when you change insurance (from a job change or your company wants to change carriers) that the plan must meet government guidelines. So the government gets to set the rules so that private carriers can't compete.

Those 'government guidelines' are things like no coverage denial for pre-existing conditions and no arbitrary dropping you from the rolls Jerry.

How is that a bad thing exactly?

You're just NEVER gonna be convinced... are ya?

Edit: KK said it much better that I did.

Remember...if you like less coverage for more money, you are always welcome to keep your current inflated-premium health care...you don't have to switch up if you don't want to.

Lose your job? Just pay the COBRA premiums...what are they running, about 500% what you're paying at your job?

Fish on...

Todd

Docspud,

Your tort reform criterion #1 is fatally flawed. Time and time again doctors simply will not sanction one of their own, no matter how egregious the error it seems. I'm not saying never, but seldom enough to have the confidence of reasonable non-doctor observers. It's like they are prohibited from ratting out a fraternity brother. Since they will seldom, if ever, find that malpractice occurred, no awards will be given, so that panel, nor caps on awards are needed.

Sg

I say bring on the public option. Without it there will be no meaningful change to the health care system. Competition is fine for autos and other consumerables, but everyone in this country should have access to at least a basic level of medical care. We are a modified capitalist country. If we practiced true captialism then only a few would have money and most of the rest of us would be dirt poor. There would be no middle class. Goverment regulation and involvement has insured that the majority of us can at least live a middle class life. So why shouldn't the goverment guarantee that we get health care?

It's really sad that so many people have drank up all of the misinformation that is out there on health care reform. For all of you that think you will be enjoying the same insurance you are today 5 and 10 years from now; you are living a fantasy. The costs in this area alone with the major companies has gone up 18% for the last three years. Lets see, what's inflation this year...-.007%. Ten years ago employer based plans paid a lot more of the cost then they do today. Look, medical insurance will simply become unaffordable in the very near future for many people and for the majority with employer or union based plans, more and more costs will be passed on; that is if they decide to continue to insure you.

I used to be against single payer. Now, I think it should be seriously considered in this country. Get the profit out of the health system. I spend a lot of time in Canada as my wife is from there. I was up there last week and it was interesting to get the relatives take on all the talk about health care in Canada that has come out from here. I don't know one person up in Canada that wants any other system then single payer. Doctors prescribe treatment without goverment interference. When a Canadian goes to the hospital they are not worried about getting an unexpected bill because the goverment didn't pay for some treatment. There are waits for non-life threatning things, primarily because of a Doctor shortage and the lower number of diagnostic equipment such as MRIs when compared to the U.S. If you have something life threatning you get treatment right away. By the way, how many of you wait for several years after you turn 50 to schedule that colonoscopy? True, those who can afford it come to the U.S. to get tested or treated. But, the same thing happens here. How many movie stars have you heard about that have travelled the world seeking to get their cancer cured? If you measure results based on outcomes, the Canadians kick our butts.

What is hurting the Canadians is the same thing that is hurting Social Security and Medicare in this country, although on a lesser scale here because we don't have the huge social safety net Canada has. There simply are fewer workers to pay the tab on their system with so many baby boomers hitting that age when you need more health care and/or reaching eligibility age to collect Social Security and Medicare.

I am not a Democrat, this bill has it's weaknesses, but without a significant leap, there will be no change. However, if Congress votes for it, then they better live under the same system. I say screw the Republicans. The Dems have the big majority and should act to change this system without them.

all of this of course IMHO

+1

Sophist aptly describes almost ALL of your arguments Hank. You tenaciously adhere to the same tired ol' talking points even while being continuously proven wrong.

OK... so socialized medicine isn't the sole reason Canadians have a higher life expectancy. It obviously ISN'T causing it to be shorter either... which is what the wingnuts think socialized medicine will do to them here.

Didn't you read Mike@Northbend's post?

Canadians DON'T wait an 'ungodly' period of time for their testing either. Otherwise they wouldn't be livin' as long as they do... now would they?

It's gotta just be the entertainment factor for you here Hank... 'cause your arguments are so easily rebutted simply by employing basic facts and a touch of reason.

How long do you wait for a hip replacement if you're uninsured and in a poor financial position?



Do you figure a lot of people pay cash for an angioplasty?

And they're the rule?

Besides, that wasn't the question. In the US, an uninsured person, in poor financial shape, would wait how long?

Forever?

Do you think those people are figured into the wait times in the US?

HERE you will get the scoop. You who have no insurance could benefit.....those of you who presently do have insurance will most likely not benefit, and those of you who have pretty damn good insurance will likely loose.

Pay particular attention to the bottom of the article......"you can keep your insurance if you want"......spin again.

"Obtuse" is a term that also describes Hank.

I can respect Hank's leaning conservative. There's some rational thought going on there. On health care he's totally fvked however. The system is broken for everyone who is not super-rich nor a member of Congress or has similar entitlements.

I'm thinking I'm not gonna' be real excited by what comes out of Congress what with the health care system lobbyists spending over a million bucks a day to influence our best Congress that money can by. Hank, if your credibility means anything in this discussion, what's your alternative, and why is it better than 3200, and how would your superior alternative get adopted in this fvkass partisan climate? I want to find out if you're just like most of the GOP that figures the only goal is to be anti-Obama, even if their alternatives lead to a dead end.

Sg

Hank, I don't think anyone disputes that there is wait times in Canada and there is a difference in care by Province. Alberta probably has the best system. My wife's uncle is a Paramedic on B.C. Ambulance. He says the care is excellent, but of course as all Paramedics know, some hospitals are better at treating certain things then others, same down here. By comparison, your chances of surviving a heart attack in Seattle/King County isn't bad when you compare it to about zero in Detroit and New York, and only a little better in L.A.

When I was visiting my family in Alberta last week, my 9 yoa Grandson developed what appeared to be an infection in his elbow. Mom took him to the Doctor, they wanted to put him in the hospital right away, however, mom talked the Doctor into a 24 hour wait to see if the antibiotics worked at home. The Doctor reluctantly agreed. My Grandson got better and is doing great now.

Three and a half years ago I had some pain in the bottom of my chest. It got worse and I went to the emergency room. After a number of hours in the ER I was released and sent home, with the advise to go see my cardiologist, which I did. The Cardiologist set me up with a nuclear stress test a couple of weeks later. That test showed a blockage. It was another week and a half before I had an Angiogram, then almost two weeks before I had the stent. Nothing wrong with the wait time, I wasn't an emergency. But, let me tell you, after the nuclear stress test I wanted the angiogram and treatment to happen right away. I felt like a walking dead man.

Somehow people feel that having quick access to diagnostic equipment like MRIs etc., is a measure of how good a system is. It isn't, it's expensive and no one measures the outcomes. It is not unlike the 911 system in this country. Most people believe that dialing 911 and getting a cop to the scene quick has a positive impact on crime. Very untrue, but yet we continue to believe it and pay for a very expensive system where the only outcomes that are usually measured are response time. Response time has very little to do with solving a crime and catching a suspect.

Your right about the variables, but obviously down in Frisco you don't get the Canadian news on what is going on with the lower mainland in B.C., there is a full on gang war happening. Regardless, the leading cause of death in this country is Heart Disease and Cancer, not homicide and homicide rates have dropped a lot since the 90s. The chance for most Americans of dying due to homicide is extremely low, unless you are unfortunate enough to be born into the hood in Oakland.

For every sad story in Canada, you would have no problem finding one to match it down here. Both systems have their problems, but no one is denied medical treatment in Canada and Canadians live longer lives then we do. Just saying, that alone makes it worth taking a look at.

It's my belief that the system will be designed to eventually force all into the public option.

"BTW docspud you're a dentist? Dental coverage is what $1,500.00 per year. So how is it that you really have ANY experience with ins? You don't, other than your malpractice fiasco. So go ahead & talk like an expert, what a joke, you haven't got a clue. Guess What? Probably most Americans can pay your bill -lol. However, we can't pay the REAL medical bills when hospitalized. Get over yourself"

I run a surgical practice. Not drill and fill dumb fu ck. IV sedation, surg, the bigger stuff no one else wants to deal with. Referral only. Hate to put that much out but you are such a dipsh it. You have no idea what malpractice is for my type of office. It aint 1500 either. You are the least useful in this conversation because you add nothing. KK I am starting to like because he actually makes me look at it from another view. You.......well lets just say I see why Bigstick kicks you around like a chump. Jack a s s.

You STILL just aren't gettin' it Hank!

Speaking for myself... I could probably be convinced by a cogent argument from the conservative side... and I know that there are a few others that probably could be too.

Since you're one of the the only conservatives here with the cognitive capacity to concoct one... how's about you do... instead of CONTINUOUSLY obfuscating the debate with red herrings, straw men, wingnut talking points and personal observations of Nancy Pelosi?

Screw the French! Sell me on a plan that's both realistic and will be good for ALL of AMERICA Hank!

You can do it... can'tcha?

I agree with the "just fukem" tactic...they've shown that they don't care one bit about America or Americans, just about not letting Obama get anything done for their own selfish and power-hungry reasons...

That's why so many of them got kicked out of office, and many of the rest will follow...

Fish on...

Todd

The Dems don't need the Repubs anyway, I think the Dems are just paying lip service to bipartisanship, they don't really care one way or the other. The problem is that they cannot get all their own on the same page. If the Dems put together a good pan that actually works for most of America then they will be rewarded, if it ends up being a mess then they will loose seats and quite a few will become lobbiests.

"I agree with the "just fukem" tactic...they've shown that they don't care one bit about America or Americans, just about not letting Obama get anything done for their own selfish and power-hungry reasons..."

I agree too, however you could insert "Bush" for "Obama" and it would reflect a lot of Congress's attitude the last 2 years of his term. I remember Bush floating an idea about SS and the Dems ran howling all the way to the town hall meetings and didn't want to do anything because it would have given Bush a "win" and shown some bi partianship. It defintely works both ways in DC.

My point was that BOTH sides pay lip service to bi-partisanship, neither really care about it unless they need a few cross overs to get something done. It wasn't to revisit the SS issue, I merely used it as an example. Bush wouldn't have tried to do the bi-partisan thing if the Repubs had the numbers at that time either. The Dems cannot get their own people in agreement so it is more newsworthy to blame the minority party. Get your own people in line and there shouldn't be any problems.

Put together a solid product and get it passed. Then we will see if your party can really do something productive for America. If you can great, personally I hope they do, if not there is a lot of bucks in lobbying.

Here's a brief synopsis of 3200 in layman's terms....everyone still lovin' it? Remember this is being laid out for the 40 million uninsured. You all must believe that those 40 million really would like to buy some insurance...right?

Some initial findings:


A tax surcharge would be imposed on individuals who earn more than $350,000.00. The surcharge would start at 1% and would increase up to 5.4% for those who have a modified adjusted gross income that exceeds $1 million.


A non-compliance tax would be imposed on individuals who do not acquire an "acceptable health insurance policy" (as determined by a government committee) for themselves and their families. This proposed non-compliance tax would be 2.5% of adjusted gross income, which would be effective after December 31, 2012. (Certain persons, including nonresident aliens, would be exempted from individual taxes.)


A non-compliance tax would be imposed on employers who do not provide their employees health care coverage which meets government-specified minimum coverage requirements. This noncompliance tax would equal 8% of the gross wages; it would be in addition to the social security tax and there would be no wage base limitation. (The Ways and Means Committee proposes an exception for small businesses that have an employee payroll of less than $400,000.00.) Coverage requirements would be mandated by a government committee, headed by a Health Commissioner who would be appointed by the president.


The Commissioner would be empowered to establish qualified health benefits plan standards, establish and operate a Health Insurance Exchange and conduct compliance audits at random. (The person or entity being audited would be required to cover the Commissioner's expenses.) The Commissioner also would be free to collect data for purposes of carrying out his or her duties.


Individual states could establish health exchanges of their own, subject to providing "timely and reasonable notice to the Commissioner." Such exchanges could be terminated at the Commissioner's discretion.


A public health insurance option would be established under the auspices of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary would collect "such data as may be required" to establish premiums and "to reduce racial, ethnic, and other disparities in health and health care." Premiums would be geographically adjusted and would comply with the premium rules established by the afore-mentioned Commissioner.


The Treasury would appropriate "such sums as necessary" to cover the first 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.


A physician or health care practitioner who agrees to participate in both Medicare and the public health insurance option would receive payments which are 5% greater than the rates paid to nonparticipating practitioners.


Vicki Rolens, managing director of FACT, says, "HR 3200 as drafted may or may not be passed into law. We just feel that people are entitled to know what the bill contains and that they should make their feelings known to their congressmen. The matter is far too important to be treated in a haphazard fashion by our elected officials, but without a strong public voice there is always a danger of that happening."


Citizens can find out how to reach their respective lawmakers by [url=visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml][url=visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml][url=visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml]visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml[/url][/url][/url]


This news release is issued as a service of the Federation of American Consumers and Travelers (FACT). FACT was formed under the not-for-profit corporation laws of the District of Columbia in 1984, and currently serves more than 1 million consumers nationwide. Additional information on FACT may be found in the Encyclopedia of Associations, and by visiting the association's Web site http://www.usafact.org). Informative, unbiased news bulletins are regularly disseminated by FACT to help its members remain current on matters which might seriously impact their lives. In addition to publishing consumer-related reports, the association provides more than 30 benefits for its members, ranging from medical insurance and dental discounts to prescription drug savings, scholarships and consumer information.


FACT's administrative office is located at 318 Hillsboro Avenue, Edwardsville, IL 62025.


Contact:

Vicki Rolens
1-800-USA-FACT
cservice@usafact.org

If the young people ever stop for a moment and figure out that this is just one more rock on their back, then perhaps they'll get pissed off enough to do something. President Printmore's magical fixes are burying them in a debt like never before......with no indication of slowing down. I have no idea how the younger generation will be able to chase their own dreams if they are locked in indentured servitude by this unending government spending spree.

What baffles me is why Mr. Roarke and the troup of "Tatoo"s of Fantasy Island are pushing so hard. A misguided loyalty for sure, IMO.

Keep in mind that I probably have more to gain than most as retirement is just a short time away, at which time I would really like to have cheap insurance. But haven't we already indebted future generations enough? This whole mess says, "Fvck 'em" alright.....to our kids.

Maybe, just maybe President Obama and Co. haven't done a very good job of laying out the program. Maybe they need to actually explain what it is that they are looking to do instead of always talking in general terms and instead get down to the "nuts and bolts" of the program. Maybe they should explain how they intend to pay for all of this instead of just saying its "deficit neutral". Its a little tough to swallow that type of pitch when the CBO says it isn't gonna be deficit neutral. If the MSNBC crowd isn't buying whole heartedly then there is a problem with the message.

And all that had to do with what? Was any of those subjects even mentioned or alluded to in the past how many posts?

That sounded like a robotic, aimless answer. It attended nothing.

Reminds me of an ancient Mesopotamian city........Babylon (phonetically speaking).

Eugene Robinson says the left isn't very passionate about health care either.

Eugene Robinson Column

I actually thinks this speaks highly of some of the Dems.....somebody's thinking, and that's good.

What happens when everybody wants to start buyin' that $350 policy in Alabama though Hank? How long do ya figure it's gonna stay $350?

Medicare and Social Security both started out much differently than they are today. Just because a public option might not be included in this bill doesn't mean that it's never gonna happen.

As a supposed 'free market capitalist'... you must surely know the basic principles of free market capitalism.

When DEMAND goes up... so do prices.

Name me one instance where a company said "ya know... business is boomin' so let's lower our prices."

How come you get that when it comes to the private plan, but none of you guys can figure that out regarding the public option?

Because a public plan would be NON-PROFIT Vic.

Yeah forgot,, liberal mind here. More people going to the same amount of doctors.... More demand same amount of supply. Oh yeah that is right we are gonna tell doctors what they can make and hope that the best and brightest amongst us are kind souls who want to help people more than they want to be successful and prosperous.

WHY would more people suddenly be going to the doctors Vic?

The same amount of people will still be gettin' sick at the same rate that they do now. The only difference will be that they won't have to burden an already overcrowded emergency room or worry about goin' bankrupt if they do get sick.

The 'rationing' argument is about as low-brow as the Death Panels or coverage for illegal immigrants. No wonder it works so well on 'conservatives'.

if that isn't the understatement of the year...

If I had a company that was just geting by and I was forced to pay for the public option I would adjust my employees wages to pay for it.

Gas wars Hank?

Yer kiddin'... right?


When the DEMAND for gasoline goes up... like they say it does every Summer... the prices ALWAYS go UP. Retailers compete with each other a little bit as to how much it goes up... but the increase is inevitable.

So tell me again how increased demand on a finite supply (affordable insurance policies) is gonna lower prices?

What "isn't going to happen"?

KK limited.

Most every program talked about has a hypothetical timeline and cost so it would appear that I'm not the only one talking about "hypotheticals".

Jeebus H. Kee-rist...the only thing more shameful than Steele saying something like that is that there are folks out there...and right here on this BB...who would actually believe it.

Shameless, indeed.

Fish on...

Todd

Just can't let it die, can you KK? Chiming in almost two days after the last post.

Were you an only child? Or just the youngest?

I suspect that as long as people like Palin and Steele keep talking about the death panels and anti-Republican healthcare discrimination, then there will always be fertile ground for this thread to continue to grow...

Fish on...

Todd

Are you saying that KK's fodder is an elephant? (there's a pun in there somewhere)