Health care Reform

[macabre]

It seems like health care reform is going down the same path as its predecessors and I hope that our government does not drop the ball on this one. Health care reform has always been shot down because of either an incoherent plan or a divided Congress. Should Obama use reconciliation and have the Republicans decry it as a divisive move or should the Democrats and Republicans find a compromise?

[Machu505]

The most progressive outcome will be a public option. Maybe the moronic conserva-Dems will start to understand that people want a public option and are willing to pay higher taxes for it. In fact, a new New York Times poll says they support a public option about 72/20.

[beyondthecover]

The most progressive outcome will be a public option. Maybe the moronic conserva-Dems will start to understand that people want a public option and are willing to pay higher taxes for it. In fact, a new New York Times poll says they support a public option about 72/20.

Wrong.

[x togepi x]

Wrong.


No, you're wrong. 57% of people polled said they'd be willing to pay more taxes for a public option.

choke on your republican talking points. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=2&ref=politics)

[saysmydoctor]

I have socialized medicine and it's amazing.

[x togepi x]

i don't have insurance at all and it sucks.

[saysmydoctor]

I lose my insurance at the age of 23. Don't know what I'll do then. Probably swallow antibiotics with food.

[open mind]

i like my free healthcare.

[x togepi x]

do like i did and only go to the doctor when you're about to die.

they'll give you the highest dosage of antibiotics they make. you get better almost instantly.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't understand how the public option--which is essentially a cheaper health insurance option--is bad. It's basically a government-run insurance program. So, if done correctly, they should turn a profit. It's not like everyone is sick at once.

[macabre]

I don't understand how the public option--which is essentially a cheaper health insurance option--is bad. It's basically a government-run insurance program. So, if done correctly, they should turn a profit. It's not like everyone is sick at once.

Republicans claim that it will be too costly and that employers will dump people onto the public option because it's cheaper. They argue that eventually the private sector will be driven out and all we'll have left is a single-payer health care system. They agree that there isn't enough competition in the health care market but they take a completely different approach. Facilitating competition through tax cuts and HSAs for individuals purchasing their own insurance, they argue, will bring down costs without the need of government involvement. However, they fail to realize that this will do nothing to curb administrative costs, inefficient risk pooling among insurance plans, and the tax cuts that have been proposed are not generous enough to keep up with costly premiums. The Republican plan fails to address the major issues in our health care system; the uninsured, egregious administrative costs, and rising health care premiums. It may be the cheaper route, but it definitely isn't the best. I don't think the public option is the be-all end-all solution to the issues within our health care system but it is a step in the right direction.

[x togepi x]

I don't understand how the public option--which is essentially a cheaper health insurance option--is bad. It's basically a government-run insurance program. So, if done correctly, they should turn a profit. It's not like everyone is sick at once.

it's not bad. once again the "centrist democrats" and republicans are merely looking out for the interests of corporations instead of citizens.

[Justin_stacy]

No, you're wrong. 57% of people polled said they'd be willing to pay more taxes for a public option.

choke on your republican talking points. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=2&ref=politics)

Did you vote for Obama, McCain or someone else?

Obama 48% McCain 25% Someone else 1%.

Shocked. (http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health#p=7)

[Justin_stacy]

i like my free healthcare.

I'm overly happy with my $170 a month care.

[lazzarat]

Did you vote for Obama, McCain or someone else?

Obama 48% McCain 25% Someone else 1%.

Shocked. (http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health#p=7)

That shouldn't throw you off: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/22/cornyn-powerline/

Yesterday, the New York Times and CBS News (NYT/CBS) released a new poll showing broad support for health care reform, with 72 percent of respondents favoring the creation of a publicly-funded health insurance option. The conservative blog Powerline immediately took issue with the poll, arguing (wrongly) that the sample was skewed because 48 percent of respondents reported voting for President Obama last fall, while just 25 percent of respondents reported voting for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Powerline compared the NYT/CBS figures to the actual election results in which Obama won 53 percent of the vote and McCain won 46 percent.

... Powerline is wrong to conclude the sample is skewed based on the data they cited. As Slate’s Christopher Beam explained last week, the disparity between last fall’s actual vote tallies and the results reported by NYT/CBS yesterday comes down to respondents being too embarrassed to admit that they didn’t vote:

The main explanation for the gap, say pollsters, is people who didn’t vote at all saying they did. These people tend to say they picked the winning candidate. Just look at the Times and Journal polls, where about 80 percent of respondents said they voted in the 2008 election. In fact, turnout was about 61 percent. (A 20 percent gap is pretty standard.) Pollsters attribute the disparity to the social discomfort of having to admit, even to a stranger on the phone, that you didn’t vote.

Further as Beam explains, “Retroactive vote reporting tends to be a proxy for popularity. … In a 2006 NYT poll, more people said they voted for John Kerry in 2004 than voted for Bush.” If Powerline wanted a more reliable indicator of who was in the NYT/CBS sample, they could have looked at the proportion of respondents that identified themselves as liberal (27 percent) and compared that to the proportion that identified themselves as conservative (29 percent). Likewise, Powerline could have noted that the sample was 24 percent Republican and 38 percent Democrat — a fairly normal party identification advantage for Democrats at the moment.

[Justin_stacy]

That shouldn't throw you off: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/22/cornyn-powerline/

there's always some excuse isn't there? ;-)

---------

hahaha, I just saw that O'realy stole my post. Fucker should pay for plagiarism.

[lazzarat]

there's always some excuse isn't there? ;-)

---------

hahaha, I just saw that O'realy stole my post. Fucker should pay for plagiarism.

Actually it was pretty self-explanatory to me. I've been seeing news items for weeks about how so many people have been reporting that they voted for Obama even when they didn't, and as a political science major I've studied the phenomenon before. Listen to the scientists and not the ideologues on this one.

[Justin_stacy]

Actually it was pretty self-explanatory to me. I've been seeing news items for weeks about how so many people have been reporting that they voted for Obama even when they didn't, and as a political science major I've studied the phenomenon before. Listen to the scientists and not the ideologues on this one.

Its politics, cred is a hard thing to come by regardless of whether one is an idealogue or a so-called scientist.

If I'm being honest...and it wasn't until after my original post, that I became aware that the disportion in voting had become such a topic of disscussion online with this poll....it does seem a tad convinent.

Now had a poll like this (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1160/health-care-support-stem-cell-opinion.), which gives very similiar numbers had been cite, I wouldn't have been quick to comment after reading the fine print.

[macabre]

I mean the ideological spread of 27% Liberal and 29% Conservative with the plurality of survey respondents being Centrists seems pretty representative of the general public. What matters is that the survey respondents themselves weren't ideologically tilted in either direction.

[Regards]

Not having health care sucks. As someone who generallly sides more to the right, I'm all for health care reform.

[Praetor]

Watching some CSpan speeches right now...the Democrats need to stop bullshitting the American public. They need to come out and say "Yeah this is bill is going to cost a lot of money so we should raise taxes on the rich." They can't halfass this. Fuck I hate this party.

[x togepi x]

Did you vote for Obama, McCain or someone else?

Obama 48% McCain 25% Someone else 1%.

Shocked. (http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health#p=7)

i wanted to respond to this but then i wanted to go drink some beer, so i did.

i think we both can agree that i made the right decision.

[open mind]

I'm overly happy with my $170 a month care.

i doubt if it's much better then mine.

[Justin_stacy]

i doubt if it's much better then mine.

I don't know how to judge that, but they paid for a portion of my wife labor and delivery they weren't obligated to do so....and that gain them alot of respect in my book.

[Justin_stacy]

i wanted to respond to this but then i wanted to go drink some beer, so i did.

i think we both can agree that i made the right decision.

:drunk:

[open mind]

I don't know how to judge that, but they paid for a portion of my wife labor and delivery they weren't obligated to do so....and that gain them alot of respect in my book.

my healthcare providers will fly people in from rural areas and put them up in a hotel for months at a time if there are any complications during pregnancy, and the labor and delivery part is completely free to begin with.

[Justin_stacy]

my healthcare providers will fly people in from rural areas and put them up in a hotel for months at a time if there are any complications during pregnancy, and the labor and delivery part is completely free to begin with.

some sort of native coverage?

[open mind]

some sort of native coverage?

yeah. one of the perks of ANCSA.

[Justin_stacy]

yeah. one of the perks of ANCSA.

nice perk. My wife's 1/8 native, and could of gotten a free college education from the state of Kansas if she was willing to take certain cultural history course at haskell college, and sign up for a set number of volunteer hours. She didn't take it, but paying the bill now I kind of wish she had.

what else is offered to you.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't know how to judge that, but they paid for a portion of my wife labor and delivery they weren't obligated to do so....and that gain them alot of respect in my book.
Call me crazy, but if I'm paying health insurance, I'm expecting full coverage, not partial coverage. That's what I pay for. The idea of a health insurance provider being obligated to only cover portions is outrageous. And I feel the same way about my socialized medicine, which only covers portions of some procedures (like only covered half of my root canal/dental surgery--granted it was caused by self-inflicted injury, in a way). And to say they lose money because of that is outrageous. Not everyone is sick at once.

[Justin_stacy]

Call me crazy, but if I'm paying health insurance, I'm expecting full coverage, not partial coverage..

I'd call you crazy but I don't know what good it would do. The details of the situtation don't really matter, but it was something our previous provider should have covered, not our new one, but was billed after we switched companies and instead of making us go through the paper work our new provide just paid for it. That was unexpected and very nice of them.

Coverage is based on what you and your employer (in most instances) pay for. Just having coverage doesn't mean full coverage, just as having auto insurance doesn't mean full coverage.....unless of course you pay for it.

[macabre]

Call me crazy, but if I'm paying health insurance, I'm expecting full coverage, not partial coverage. That's what I pay for. The idea of a health insurance provider being obligated to only cover portions is outrageous. And I feel the same way about my socialized medicine, which only covers portions of some procedures (like only covered half of my root canal/dental surgery--granted it was caused by self-inflicted injury, in a way). And to say they lose money because of that is outrageous. Not everyone is sick at once.

When you pay for insurance, you're essentially paying for services that you may need in the future. However since insurance companies have a profit motive, they must deny more claims in a given fiscal year than they accept. The issue is not everyone being sick at once, the issue is whether they have made a profit by denying more claims than they have paid out and therein lies the problem.

[macabre]

Which brings me to a related point. Why the hell do we need private health insurance companies? These companies do not provide any service whatsoever other than lowering future health costs, a goal that can be achieved through the government or non-profits. Insurance companies are not health care providers, they do not research new drugs or treatments, they do not dispense medication. Their sole obligation to the consumer is to make sure that that the burden of future health care costs will be eased through the insurance mechanism. However, the profit motive gets in the way of them fulfilling this obligation. When you deny more claims that you take in, you deny people the sole product you are supposed to provide in the first place. It makes no sense to me. [/rant]

[Mitch]

"The White House may be indicating to Senate allies (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/dem-senators-white-house-open-to-dropping-public-option/) that it is open to dropping the public plan option as part of a health reform deal. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has been pushing a proposal to replace the public plan with regional cooperatives (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/10/conrad-coop/), said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel indicated Obama is “open to alternatives (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aM8gSMwm3cbE).”"

:rolleyes:

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

what other "alternatives" are there? keep it how it is?

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Please don't pussy out on this. I will be greatly disappointed if this happens. Have a pair Obama admin.

[macabre]

For any of you interested in US health policy, check out this new study from the Commonwealth Fund comparing most of the plans that have been proposed:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jun/Fork-in-the-Road.aspx

edit: Check out these projections
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jun/%7E/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2009/Fork%20in%20the%20Road/forkintheroad_exibit_es3.gif?w=550&h=414&as=1

[TeachBirds2Fly]

Thank Fuck for the NHS, free heallth care, free perscriptions coming soon, and free care for the elderly (well free at the point of use). Guys should move to Scotland

[TeachBirds2Fly]

Nothing much is going to change, same old story HMO's etc.. biliion dollar industry, something like 15 lobbiests for every politican.
Does anyone now if Obama accepted money from the health industry for his campaign and if so how much?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Nothing much is going to change, same old story HMO's etc.. biliion dollar industry, something like 15 lobbiests for every politican.
Does anyone now if Obama accepted money from the health industry for his campaign and if so how much?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

[WarpSpeedChewy]

"The White House may be indicating to Senate allies (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/dem-senators-white-house-open-to-dropping-public-option/) that it is open to dropping the public plan option as part of a health reform deal. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has been pushing a proposal to replace the public plan with regional cooperatives (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/10/conrad-coop/), said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel indicated Obama is “open to alternatives (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aM8gSMwm3cbE).”"

:rolleyes:
UPDATE: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/dems-obama-open-to-droppi_n_219979.html) Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) denied the Bloomberg story, saying Rahm Emanuel never said President Obama was open to giving up the public option (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/dem-senator-denies-rahm-said-obama-ready-to-nix-public-option/).

Whew.

[Machu505]

Reform without a public option would be some pussy fucking reform.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

It would not be reform really. I wanna see the Obama administration with the pair of balls to see it through. Even if it doesn't get accomplished, it'll still be the right way to go.

[open mind]

nice perk. My wife's 1/8 native, and could of gotten a free college education from the state of Kansas if she was willing to take certain cultural history course at haskell college, and sign up for a set number of volunteer hours. She didn't take it, but paying the bill now I kind of wish she had.

what else is offered to you.

my mom is a shareholder in the calista corporation but the people running it are greedy fucks that line their own pockets at the expense of the rest of the populace (kinda like the rest of corporate america)....so she might get a 100 bucks every 2-4 years.

our corporation is also going into mining along our rivers which is bound to kill off the fish along the kuskokwim and it's tributaries and effectively destroy the subsistence way of life my family has had for 10,000 plus years...but at least we don't have it as bad as bristol bay and their proposed mine...i think the divide and conquer strategy is going to be just as catastrophic as the genocides before it when all is said and done.

other then that there's not a whole lot of other benefits.