My first thought was ‘Death panels,’ too…

[shagdrum]

they're already bankrupting your healthcare system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/jackson-health-miami-hosp_n_493096.html

That article hardly supports your conclusion...

 

[fossten]

Polls show people aren't all that freaked out about healthcare.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws, are you arguing that the bill specifically doesn't immediately create a single payer system? That would be accurate. It doesn't do that in a single step.

But are you going to argue that the bill won't to lead us, force us, into a single payer system within a few years?
And why don't you support a public option or the single payer system? Because you oppose it on principle or because you recognize the political liability that doing such a thing overtly would be.

Will it force us into single payer - no. I don't like single payer or the public option because I think we should allow private industry a chance to really compete and solve the problem. Removing some old monopoly creating laws should help. It should be like auto insurance - lots of products and companies competing for our dollar.

Why would the current Senate option do this - the public option is off the table. The worse thing for insurance companies, more accountability in the health insurance sector. Similar to how public utilities are handled - rate increases would have to go through a review system - it hasn't hurt the public utility companies... their profit margins are around 8 percent, higher than the numbers that are thrown around for health insurance.

The government is opening up the industry to competition - shouldn't that be good for the industry and the consumer... ability to buy across state lines - and state exchange programs. Plus, now there are penalties if you don't have insurance - even more people/companies will be shopping for health insurance. More opportunities for good insurance companies to create products that people want.

Examples?

Of course insurers can drag their feet on certain procedures (cosmetic and other non-life saving procedures), but unless you can show that they do so on life saving procedure resulting in a death sentence, you are misleading. Again...

Shag-look into Nick Colombo, Nataline Sarkisyan, Kim Kutcher, and those are just recent denials in California - no one tracks the insurance industry denial rates or problems outside of California...

And even if you can find that; is the patient prohibited from paying for care themselves? This guy had to come to America; to the private sector.

And what is preventing people from paying for care themselves - how about procedures that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars - money that the consumer thought they would never have to pay, because they paid into insurance for decades - so they don't have one hundred thousand dollars just sitting in their checking account shag. The idea that you can 'just pay for it' is ridiculous. Could you 'just pay for it' shag - or would it consume your savings, your parent's savings, and perhaps even part of their retirement savings? Is that the price we should have to pay to be 'well'?

However, if you just want to buy a procedure, you can, if you do have the money (wealthy Americans often don't have health care insurance - it doesn't make sense for them)... there is nothing in either bill that is removing the private sector - absolutely nothing. Nothing that turns doctors into government employees, hospitals into state institutions...

If an private insurer did this, there would be civil liability; they would be held accountable...

Check out what happens with ERISA shag -

Which bill? You don't even know how many bills there are. And you haven't addressed the point that I made about Obama's EXPRESSED intentions to bring about single payer. Nor have you addressed Shag's point that the current bills will eventually RESULT in single payer. Moreover, you're ignoring the point I made about Obama's track record of nationalizing several of our private industries ALREADY. In short, you're just whining and posturing. You're not really interested in discussion.
The old Mary Mapes defense, eh? Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to show why they are right. Never mind that your prediction is absurd. Show me how the US can survive with another $10 trillion in debt.

Foss - there are only 2 bills on the table - and right now - only one counts - the Senate bill...

What industry has he nationalized? What industry is now owned entirely by the government? Do you know what it means to nationalize an industry Foss?

And where in the world did you get that the health care bill will add $10 trillion dollars to the debt - can you show me where you got that figure... Or maybe you will back off and just say that Obama's policies will add 10 trillion - because the health care plan isn't going to come close to that, and some estimates show that it will decrease the deficit.

 

[shagdrum]

Will it force us into single payer - no.

Assuming the individual mandate is not ruled unconstitutional (which it would be), how would the individual mandate be enforced?

And what is preventing people from paying for care themselves - how about procedures that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars

Apparently you missed the last line in the post of mine you were responding to:

You could say that costs are prohibitively expensive in America (an arguable proposition), but the reason for that is due to government distorting the market in a myriad of ways. You think actual costs are any less in Canada?​

It would be helpful to this discussion if you didn't misconstrue what I say and then dismiss it...

there is nothing in either bill that is removing the private sector

You purely conclusory arguments aside; how will the individual mandate be enforced?

 

[fossten]

Will it force us into single payer - no.

That's it? That's all you've got? Pitiful argument. Proof by assertion. Not convincing.

It's hilarious how you defend the bill while at the same time admitting that it's a terrible bill. You loser Democrats will have to break the law to pass it.

Sucks to be on the losing end, huh?

This is the only question we really need to ask you, fox:

Do you hope the Senate Bill passes or not?

 

[foxpaws]

Assuming the individual mandate is not ruled unconstitutional (which it would be), how would the individual mandate be enforced?

so - why worry - it is unconstitutional -

Apparently you missed the last line in the post of mine you were responding to:

You could say that costs are prohibitively expensive in America (an arguable proposition), but the reason for that is due to government distorting the market in a myriad of ways. You think actual costs are any less in Canada?​

Shag - it is the cost of high tech medical advances that is the biggest reason for increased costs... Not government distortion...

Although many factors contributed to that growth, most analysts have concluded that the bulk of the long-term rise resulted from the health care system’s use of new medical services that were made possible by technological advances, or what some analysts term the “increased capabilities of medicine.” Major advances in medical science have allowed health care providers to diagnose and treat illness in ways that were previously impossible. Many new services are very costly; others are relatively inexpensive but raise aggregate costs quickly as ever-growing numbers of patients use them. Technological innovation can theoretically reduce costs and, for many types of goods and services, often does. Historically, however, the nature of technological advances in medicine and the changes in clinical practice that followed them have tended to raise spending.​

What does the 'actual cost in Canada' have to do with anything?

You purely conclusory arguments aside; how will the individual mandate be enforced?

Supposedly with income tax penalties... that is what is stated in the bill.

 

[foxpaws]

That's it? That's all you've got? Pitiful argument. Proof by assertion. Not convincing.

It's hilarious how you defend the bill while at the same time admitting that it's a terrible bill. You loser Democrats will have to break the law to pass it.

Sucks to be on the losing end, huh?

This is the only question we really need to ask you, fox:

Do you hope the Senate Bill passes or not?

And your proof it will lead to single payer?

I have always said I was against the bills as they stand - I hope this one is defeated - but I also hope it doesn't mean that there won't health insurance reform... that it just gets swept under the rug. We do need it - once again - look at the congressional report I linked in Shag's response above - we can't afford not to fix the problem.

 

[fossten]

Supposedly with income tax penalties... that is what is stated in the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance that they don't want is morally wrong. It's also illegal. Of course, legality hasn't been a high priority for "The Most Ethical Congress Evah."

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - it is the cost of high tech medical advances that is the biggest reason for increased costs... Not government distortion...

Correction; of the factors that study looked at, medical tech advancements were the biggest reason. If they didn't look at the market distortions of medicare and medicaid (especially in the area of reimbursement rates), regulations mandating extra testing in bringing new tech to market, etc. then it hardly disproves the notion that those government actions are the primary reasons.

In fact, I can't find any evidence that the study you cite even considered those factors.

Basically, the report you cite does not, in any way, empirically prove that new tech is the primary factor, let alone that it is a greater factor then government market distortions. All the study proves is that new medical tech is the primary factor of the factors it considered.

Supposedly with income tax penalties... that is what is stated in the bill.

Considering that the bill doesn't allow insurers to turn away anyone for pre-existing conditions, what would happen if a number of people chose to simply incur the penalty until they actually needed health insurance, at which point they would purchase it?

FYI: they are putting a public option back in...

 

[foxpaws]

Correction; of the factors that study looked at, medical tech advancements were the biggest reason. If they didn't look at the market distortions of medicare and medicaid (especially in the area of reimbursement rates), regulations mandating extra testing in bringing new tech to market, etc. then it hardly disproves the notion that those government actions are the primary reasons.

In fact, I can't find any evidence that the study you cite even considered those factors.
Basically, the report you cite does not, in any way, empirically prove that new tech is the primary factor, let alone that it is a greater factor then government market distortions. All the study proves is that new medical tech is the primary factor of the factors it considered.

I can say that it is so small it isn't even worthy of looking at... You can pull out your CATO study - but I can pull out many more than that Shag - other government studies, the AMA, from economists, from insurance companies.

You probably would have better luck arguing that cost insulation has more to do with rising costs - and I would have to agree that certainly contributes greatly as well - I think that the fact we don't have a clue on how much stuff costs - or that we really care - causes costs to rise...

Considering that the bill doesn't allow insurers to turn away anyone for pre-existing conditions, what would happen if a number of people chose to simply incur the penalty until they actually needed health insurance, at which point they would purchase it?

private insurers will do what they do now - cap spending (probably fairly low in this case) and then turn the people over to medicaid. That is what they always have done.

And what will be different than not having insurance at all, without the penalty, like what we have right now...?

Without the penalty (like we have now) - those people will end up instantly on medicaid without having paid anything at anytime.

With the penalty - perhaps millions of people will be paying the penalty that are healthy (and if they aren't paying the penalty they have insurance, which will insulate taxpayers to some extent) - a big fund will be out there to pay for the people who are moved onto medicaid by the private insurers. There is some compensation - and potentially a lot.

We pay shag - if those people decide not to have insurance under our current system, we pay it all. If they have been required to pay a penalty for many years - there is a pool of money to at least help pay the costs. Now - nothing is there but our tax dollars.

It is unconstitutional - however, I would think you would like this shag - in the long run it would reduce the taxpayer's exposure via medicaid.

FYI: they are putting a public option back in...

Then the bill is really dead - the senate will not go for a public option...

 

[foxpaws]

Forcing people to buy insurance that they don't want is morally wrong. It's also illegal. Of course, legality hasn't been a high priority for "The Most Ethical Congress Evah."

I know - I agreed that it is unconstitutional

 

[Calabrio]

I know - I agreed that it is unconstitutional

Yet you continue to support a bill that you recognize as unconstitutional?

 

[foxpaws]

Yet you continue to support a bill that you recognize as unconstitutional?

Cal - again I have said I don't support this bill... How many times do I have to say that?

I am tired of all the misrepresentation that is out there... Because it hurts the chances of a good bill getting passed. That is why I defend parts of the bills. They have excellent parts... Parts that both sides agree on. Reform is needed, has been needed for a long time.

Like this thread - using 'death panels'... the misrepresentation is just rampant out there...

 

[fossten]

Cal - again I have said I don't support this bill... How many times do I have to say that?

Because you keep saying this:

I am tired of all the misrepresentation that is out there... Because it hurts the chances of a good bill getting passed. That is why I defend parts of the bills. They have excellent parts... Parts that both sides agree on. Reform is needed, has been needed for a long time.

Government interference isn't wanted or needed in our healthcare. The only kind of bill I support is one that REMOVES government restrictions that are ALREADY in place. The Senate does not do that, but rather INCREASES government control on a massive scale. And THAT is NOT a misrepresentation. Evidently, fox, you side with the elitists that believe more government is the answer.

I don't know where you get off saying that both sides agree on parts of these bills. The right has been completely frozen out of the debate and all suggestions have been rejected by the Messiah.

But just for fun - which of Representative Paul Ryan's proposals have been included in the current Senate bill?

Oh, and one last question, fox:

If the bill is so unpopular, and even YOU think it's a bad bill (at least parts of it ), why are the Democrats pushing it so hard, against the will of the American people and against even the law?

 

[fossten]

However, if you just want to buy a procedure, you can, if you do have the money (wealthy Americans often don't have health care insurance - it doesn't make sense for them)... there is nothing in either bill that is removing the private sector - absolutely nothing. Nothing that turns doctors into government employees, hospitals into state institutions...

Within the stimulus bill, language states that doctors and hospitals that aren't 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties. So the incentive won't be there.

Ever heard of the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research?"

Those will be your Death Panels.

The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

 

[fossten]

On page 2099 of the House bill, the student loan industry is nationalized.

Page 1557 has the Comparative Effectiveness Center (Death Panels):

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.

***

(i) DIVERSE REPRESENTATION OF PERSPECTIVES.—The members of the Commission shall represent a broad range of perspectives and shall collectively have experience in the following areas:
(I) Epidemiology.
(II) Health services research.
(III) Bioethics.
(IV) Decision sciences.
(V) Health disparities.
(VI) Economics.

 

[fossten]

And what will be different than not having insurance at all, without the penalty, like what we have right now...?

Without the penalty (like we have now) - those people will end up instantly on medicaid without having paid anything at anytime.

With the penalty - perhaps millions of people will be paying the penalty that are healthy (and if they aren't paying the penalty they have insurance, which will insulate taxpayers to some extent) - a big fund will be out there to pay for the people who are moved onto medicaid by the private insurers. There is some compensation - and potentially a lot.

It's called stealing, fox. Stealing is wrong. Your rights end where mine begin. You do not have the right to healthcare when it involves stealing from me to pay for it.

 

[fossten]

 

[foxpaws]

Because you keep saying this:

Government interference isn't wanted or needed in our healthcare. The only kind of bill I support is one that REMOVES government restrictions that are ALREADY in place. The Senate does not do that, but rather INCREASES government control on a massive scale. And THAT is NOT a misrepresentation. Evidently, fox, you side with the elitists that believe more government is the answer.

I don't know where you get off saying that both sides agree on parts of these bills. The right has been completely frozen out of the debate and all suggestions have been rejected by the Messiah.

But just for fun - which of Representative Paul Ryan's proposals have been included in the current Senate bill?

Oh, and one last question, fox:

If the bill is so unpopular, and even YOU think it's a bad bill (at least parts of it ), why are the Democrats pushing it so hard, against the will of the American people and against even the law?

I have no idea of why the Dems are pushing so hard - I am not that close to the party's power...

And yes - there are parts that both sides like - the removal of many of the monopoly laws that hinder free trade across state lines for health insurance companies is one. Ending the policy of rescission. Allowing individuals and small companies to join groups to buy health insurance at lower rates - like big companies and unions do. Allowing the states to circumvent the federal law if they have programs that do as well. Taxing cadillac plans, just as a start Foss...

 

[foxpaws]

It's called stealing, fox. Stealing is wrong. Your rights end where mine begin. You do not have the right to healthcare when it involves stealing from me to pay for it.

It already happens foss - where don't you get that basic idea? You pay for Medicaid, you pay for local emergency room care with local taxes, and that isn't going away is it? Your money gets 'stolen' all the time for health care.

I know the penalty for not having insurance is unconstitutional, however that part I do like (but, no way around it - it is unconstitutional and would be struck down).

I am tired of having people steal from me too Foss-I would rather have people who work, who decide not to have health insurance (or companies that decide not to offer health insurance to their full time employees), be required to pay into something, so when those people need health care, we have some compensation.

You can't leave the sick outside the hospital doors, dying, so you make choices. You do pay, but how much you pay could be changed with the penalty system.

However, I do love the Kill Bill poster... smile

 

[fossten]

It already happens foss - where don't you get that basic idea?

I knew you'd try to justify stealing. Well done, statist. Marx would be so proud.

Again - your right to healthcare stops at my right to provide for my family. Period. That you support stealing from me puts you on the side of the wrong.

 

[foxpaws]

I knew you'd try to justify stealing. Well done, statist. Marx would be so proud.

Again - your right to healthcare stops at my right to provide for my family. Period. That you support stealing from me puts you on the side of the wrong.

So, you do leave the sick and dying outside the hospital doors - correct Foss? Then your murdering puts you on the side of a larger wrong.

 

[shagdrum]

I can say that it is so small it isn't even worthy of looking at... You can pull out your CATO study - but I can pull out many more than that Shag - other government studies, the AMA, from economists, from insurance companies.

Do any of those actually look at the effects I am talking about? If not, they don't empirically disprove them and to sight them is to mislead...

private insurers will do what they do now - cap spending (probably fairly low in this case) and then turn the people over to medicaid. That is what they always have done.

And what will be different than not having insurance at all, without the penalty, like what we have right now...?

Your dodging...

Obama, as well as most other socialists involved in this power grab, have said that you cannot mandate that insurance cover anyone regardless of pre-existing condition, without an individual mandate.

If people decide not to get healthcare unless and until they need it (incurring the penalty instead) insurance companies will mostly have people enrolling who are in need of high dollar care. That will drive the insurance companies out of business.

You also have all the regulations in the senate bill that would effectively make insurance a public utility.

If you actually look at the economic reality that this bill would be enacted in and look at the consequences of the utopian economic assumptions in the bill when enacted in that reality, there is no way that insurers can survive in the long run.

 

[fossten]

So, you do leave the sick and dying outside the hospital doors - correct Foss? Then your murdering puts you on the side of a larger wrong.

Hey, progandist lying race baiting fearmonger - your rights end where mine begin. Once again, despite numerous acts of debunking by many on this forum, you persist in equating 'insurance' with 'care.' Your pathetic guilt trip accusations FAIL.

I'll see your so called 'larger wrong' and raise you a DEATH PANEL.

Nobody ever died from lack of health insurance. Prove it - I want to see it on a chart.

 

[foxpaws]

Do any of those actually look at the effects I am talking about? If not, they don't empirically disprove them and to sight them is to mislead...

You might be interested Shag - take a look....

Obama, as well as most other socialists involved in this power grab, have said that you cannot mandate that insurance cover anyone regardless of pre-existing condition, without an individual mandate.

If people decide not to get healthcare unless and until they need it (incurring the penalty instead) insurance companies will mostly have people enrolling who are in need of high dollar care. That will drive the insurance companies out of business.

People will opt to keep their current plans - you won't get preventative care, or 'early on' care, or 'take your kid to see why he has a fever care' on the 'don't buy health insurance until you have to' method. And once again shag - the insurance companies will put lower caps - in fact I have read one really great way that insurance companies are looking at this problem already - the capitalist system at work. You create 'credits' for each year you have health insurance, and those credits mean higher limits. If you have been with a health care insurer for 2 years - your limit might only be $100,000 dollars - for 7 years - $700,000.

You also have all the regulations in the senate bill that would effectively make insurance a public utility.

Yes you do - I mentioned that earlier - using the profit margins of public utilities vs health insurers as a 'win' situation... With common sense regulation, and the ability to compete across state lines, the insurance companies could be far 'healthier' then they are now.

If you actually look at the economic reality that this bill would be enacted in and look at the consequences of the utopian economic assumptions in the bill when enacted in that reality, there is no way that insurers can survive in the long run.

Why not? Automobile insurers are heavily regulated - but are quite profitable. In many states automobile insurance is required, and there are special policies that deal with high risk drivers (similar to pre existing conditions in health policies).

I think that the health insurance industry can come out of this stronger, not weaker. If the penalty for not having health insurance is $750 for an individual and $3,000 for a family - don't you think there will be some sort of policy that is created by the health insurance industry that will be slightly below that threshold? It might be bare bones, and it might have low caps - but there will be something... And I am sure that just above those thresholds, there will be lots of opportunity... Insurance for this low amount and for only $25 a month more you can add a prescription care policy, and for only an additional $15 a month you can add eye health, and for only .... the list is endless shag... and the profits can add up quickly. And once again - if insurers are rewarded for sticking with a company, like the 'credit' thing that is being discussed by insurance companies, it could be a win-win for everyone.