Healthcare...concessions my A$$...

[dickay]

This is SO SIMPLE....yet nothing will get done. Why? Because honestly democrats don't want to do it as a whole. Most of the "blue dogs" are from states where its not popular and are trying to ensure there are reasons why it won't go through. Republicans of course are playing their game....typical Washington at its absolute worst.

Putting whats on the table from both sides, this is an easy fix for Washington and the American Public.

FACT: We need reform. Not because of an outrageously ficticious number of americans who are uninsured. The insurance companies are too greedy, take advantage of too many by denying coverages, and healthcare costs are skyrocketing. OK...how do we get there?

A. Healthcare Reform: The democrat plan(s) have some great things that as has been stated, are agreed upon by both parties. Mandating insurers cover despite pre-existing conditions, a mandate for all for the most part can be agreed upon.

B. Competition: A concession from the democrats. Allow insurers to compete across state lines!! Why is that not even being considered? We as Americans should be appalled that they won't consider this option. Much of the problem is that in some states there are very few options. This will increase competition, and also be a concession for the insurance companies giving them access to thousands and thousands of potential customers.

C. Tort Reform: This should be an absolute must and will single-handedly make a huge dent into insurance costs (and another concession to insurers). Many good doctors are being driven away from "risky" practices because they can't afford to get malpractice insurance. The cost of this alone drives up costs elsewhere. THIS IS A PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE REFORM....why is it not being considered, other than Obama's "we'll start talking about it"?? INCLUDE IT and help control costs. This alone will buy many republican votes.

D. Public Option: One of the most divisive issues, and one thats NOT NECESSARY as currently discussed once we allow competition across state lines and agree to tort reform. Why not offer a concession here, by both parties? REPUBLICANS agree to a public option similar to Connecticuts "Husky" State Run program but on a federal level. This is for those who truly can't afford insurance for whatever reason, the program would give them coverage. Because its for a FAR smaller segment of society, we could raise the bar somewhat to allow more of them to be covered yet still have it cheaper than a Public Option for all would entail. DEMOCRATS concede on the public option for all and settle on this option for the truly poor. In the end, this is more of a REPUBLICAN concession.

E. Insurance Mandate: This is a must and republicans need to give in. The above mentioned items will bring insurance costs down....those who can afford it must obtain it. I know this is an issue with those who claim they want to live in a "free society" and make the choice themselves but those people do hurt us all by clogging the emergency rooms and not being able to cover the costs of their healthcare they pass it on to us taxpaying and insured citizens. I'm not opposed to a penalty for those who don't obtain coverage. I don't know how it would work....but i think an agreement could be reached.

F. Costs: This is simple and the concessions made by both sides would easily allow this to pass. First of all, without the comprehensive public option the overall costs will be much much lower. Democrats have claimed there is 600 BILLION in medicare/medicaid waste which is appalling!! Whats appalling, is rather than do something about that waste now, we're leaving it hinged upon healthcare reform. Fix it!! Today!! The elderly however hear 600 BILLION slashed from medicare/caid and are scared to death that their coverages would be reduced. I agree with and understand their apprehension because that number is outrageous if it is true waste. So easy...cut out only a third of that number! Sell it to Americans how you will, but the public option has now been reduced by more than 2/3rds as detailed above so you don't need to trim 600 billion from medicare/caid. Take a smaller portion, republicans can claim they saved critical programs and both parties truly trimmed fat. win/win. if there really is more waste in medicare/caid....it can be dealt with at a later date.

healthcare is now done, passed...the democrats made concessions but in they end they were successful and passed sweeping legislation..lets move on.:mad:

[Alloutwar]

doesn't sound too bad, altogether.

I think the state lines issue might be a factor when states have specific insurance laws, and companies would have to have a physical office and conform to all kinds of laws upon moving - thats the reason so many plans like Kaiser and Pacificare have a seperate plan/company in each state. Competition isn't as easy as just opening it up - a new state means a new body of laws and issues to deal with. Certifications, insurance, etc.

[Jeffy25]

I have always liked your many different ideas regarding healthcare

[dickay]

doesn't sound too bad, altogether.

I think the state lines issue might be a factor when states have specific insurance laws, and companies would have to have a physical office and conform to all kinds of laws upon moving - thats the reason so many plans like Kaiser and Pacificare have a seperate plan/company in each state. Competition isn't as easy as just opening it up - a new state means a new body of laws and issues to deal with. Certifications, insurance, etc.

rid of the red tape!! why does an insurance company need an office in RI to wire funds there to pay for their medical??? Comcast can service me from Thailand for crying out loud. maybe they need an adjuster or something, i dunno?? give them an office, so what.

these laws should be made standard across state lines. this is a federal program now.

[dickay]

I have always liked your many different ideas regarding healthcare

thanks...

it just seems so simple. is what i proposed the most "ideal" scenario..no. but just using what they have on the table, if they truly wanted to do right by americans and actually pass a bill...WTF. :mad:

[OregonDuck1989]

Perhaps you should go the floor dickay. Propose your legislation. Then promptly call every single member of congress "jackasses".

I'd vote for anyone who called congress "jackasses"

[dickay]

Perhaps you should go the floor dickay. Propose your legislation. Then promptly call every single member of congress "jackasses".

I'd vote for anyone who called congress "jackasses"

i'd so do it if given the public forum and cameras to do it in front of. we need a public uprising to call congress on the sh!t they pull. they got the cameras and the media and the pen however.:(

[free2131]

How about we take the profit factor out of HEALING PEOPLE... no one?

[dickay]

How about we take the profit factor out of HEALING PEOPLE... no one?

yes, take away the benefit for doctors to spend years and years and thousands of dollars to learn their craft. mandate they work for free. I'm in. anyone else? :rolleyes:

communism here we come.

lets have bakers and restaurants rid the profits out of FEEDING PEOPLE!

lets have govt. officials work for free. lets have construction workers donate their time to BUILD SHELTER. lets have...well, you see where i'm going.

your hypothesis sounds nice...but in theory i think it would set back the medical profession decades if not centuries. Its that profit that leads companies to research and develop new medicine and techniques, its that profit that drives people to the profession of healing people. its that profit that schools seek to teach these people. Sure there are other motives involved, but don't fool yourself. take out that profit and we go back eons.

[HoustonGM]

your hypothesis sounds nice...but in theory i think it would set back the medical profession decades if not centuries. Its that profit that leads companies to research and develop new medicine and techniques, its that profit that drives people to the profession of healing people. its that profit that schools seek to teach these people. Sure there are other motives involved, but don't fool yourself. take out that profit and we go back eons.
What makes, say, policing and firefighting, so much different? Does nothing cause them to research and develop? Is there nothing driving people to those professions? No schools to teach those people?

Like police protection and firefighters, I believe basic healthcare is something that should be afforded to all people.

[dickay]

What makes, say, policing and firefighting, so much different? Does nothing cause them to research and develop? Is there nothing driving people to those professions? No schools to teach those people?

Like police protection and firefighters, I believe basic healthcare is something that should be afforded to all people.

nothing makes them different. policeman and firefighters (not including volunteer) are paid, and the best ones..those in forensics and the like are paid very highly because of their expertise. they have to school for many years to reach that level. standard beat cops and everyday firefighters are paid yes much less and their level of schooling is often much less as well. Do we wish to drive down the level of education our doctors receive? Is that the end game?

point is...there are not nearly enough volunteer firefighters and policemen to patrol our streets, hence why we offer paid positions. the people that provide firefighting and police equipment and improve the technology do so for profit.

only in a dream world would we all work as lemmings for a meager existence for the betterment of society. Some people volunteer their time, others do not. I personally am involved in three different organizations where i volunteer time for various causes. If we all do a little it can go a long way. But I don't see us anywhere near a point in time where a whole industry such as healthcare can be handled by volunteers and non-for-profits. It doesn't make any sense...again, in a dream world.

[dickay]

i was in a hurry this morning. i think what free is saying is not that doctors shouldn't be compensated for "HEALING PEOPLE" but that the system should be set up as a not-for-profit and doctor salaries should be included into a large scale public healthcare budget? This budget I suppose would carry enough funding for large scale research & development?

All I can say to that is look at how much money these pharmecuitcal companies spend yearly to come up with advancements in medicine and technology. The employees, scientists, CEO's, etc. they hire, will they be public employees too? Will they too have similar salaries as they do in private industry? This is just the R&D phase, we haven't even gotten to the part of administering a program, insurance, etc. You're talking one he!l of a budget.

It all can't be handled by the public sector, we NEED private industry. In order to finance such an operation there is a need for shareholders and hence a profit margin. Even every public entity uses private industry..including HGM's police and fire departments.

I don't see any possible way where 1) profit can be removed from health care and 2) it would benefit us.

[HoustonGM]

nothing makes them different. policeman and firefighters (not including volunteer) are paid, and the best ones..those in forensics and the like are paid very highly because of their expertise. they have to school for many years to reach that level. standard beat cops and everyday firefighters are paid yes much less and their level of schooling is often much less as well. Do we wish to drive down the level of education our doctors receive? Is that the end game?

point is...there are not nearly enough volunteer firefighters and policemen to patrol our streets, hence why we offer paid positions. the people that provide firefighting and police equipment and improve the technology do so for profit.

only in a dream world would we all work as lemmings for a meager existence for the betterment of society. Some people volunteer their time, others do not. I personally am involved in three different organizations where i volunteer time for various causes. If we all do a little it can go a long way. But I don't see us anywhere near a point in time where a whole industry such as healthcare can be handled by volunteers and non-for-profits. It doesn't make any sense...again, in a dream world.
So, um, whoever said that doctors and healthcare professionals shouldn't be paid? :confused:

But, I think you realized that in your second post.

[oriole^]

All I can say to that is look at how much money these pharmecuitcal companies spend yearly to come up with advancements in medicine and technology. The employees, scientists, CEO's, etc. they hire, will they be public employees too? Will they too have similar salaries as they do in private industry? This is just the R&D phase, we haven't even gotten to the part of administering a program, insurance, etc. You're talking one he!l of a budget.

It all can't be handled by the public sector, we NEED private industry. In order to finance such an operation there is a need for shareholders and hence a profit margin. Even every public entity uses private industry..including HGM's police and fire departments.

Kind of an overblown point, IMO. Ever heard of a hip replacement? The technology that made them possible was developed in France. Yep, major medical advance from a purely socialized health care system (which no one in the U.S. is advocating at this point).

I believe an ideal system for medical innovation would have an active private sector, but I think the way the argument is being framed by conservatives - that affecting the profit of health care companies one iota will suddenly cause all medical invention in the U.S.A. to cease - is disingenuous.

[HoustonGM]

Agreed.

[dickay]

Kind of an overblown point, IMO. Ever heard of a hip replacement? The technology that made them possible was developed in France. Yep, major medical advance from a purely socialized health care system (which no one in the U.S. is advocating at this point).

I believe an ideal system for medical innovation would have an active private sector, but I think the way the argument is being framed by conservatives - that affecting the profit of health care companies one iota will suddenly cause all medical invention in the U.S.A. to cease - is disingenuous.

i don't see conservatives framing that argument at all...but i'm sure there may be some extremists somewhere saying something similar.....:confused:

first can you source the france hip replacement claim? wiki says it was first performed in Germany in the 1800's and an American doctor at John Hopkins did the first with metal in the 1940s and the modern technology is attributed to a Great Britain doctor. I found nothing searching about france.

but i agree...there has to be an active private sector...and yes it currently is far too profit driven.

[HoustonGM]

You sort of said that here:

take out that profit and we go back eons.

[dickay]

You sort of said that exact thing here:

no i sort of didn't. don't start putting words in peoples mouths. Taking out all profit, as was suggested and what my comment was in context regarding, and as oriole stated, "affecting the profit of health care companies one iota", are two entirely separate things. :rolleyes:

[HoustonGM]

They're similar, which is why I said "sort of." Suggesting that taking out profit all together will send us back eons is pretty disingenuous too. A lot of Europe doesn't have for-profit healthcare, and are they really "eons" behind America?

[dickay]

They're similar, which is why I said "sort of." Suggesting that taking out profit all together will send us back eons is pretty disingenuous too. A lot of Europe doesn't have for-profit healthcare, and are they really "eons" behind America?

i suspect they still have many private industry doing R&D, creating medication, medical equipment, supplies, and so on and so forth. maybe healthcare in terms of providing the end product is not for profit...but private industry is still involved and heavily. So no, its not disingenuous.

and no they aren't similar. saying taking all profit out vs. taking one iota of profit out...really couldn't be any further apart.

[HoustonGM]

i suspect they still have many private industry doing R&D, creating medication, medical equipment, supplies, and so on and so forth. maybe healthcare in terms of providing the end product is not for profit...but private industry is still involved and heavily. So no, its not disingenuous.
I don't think free was suggesting making every single little thing involved with healthcare non-profit.

and no they aren't similar. saying taking all profit out vs. taking one iota of profit out...really couldn't be any further apart.
I see suggesting that removing profit will set us back eons as similar to suggesting that taking some profit out will cause medical invention to cease in that they're both unrealistic and untrue.

Of course, if you meant "removing profit" as in "completely from every single minute aspect of healthcare", than, fine, you're right, that'd probably set us back eons... But I assumed you meant removing profit from providing healthcare, because that's what I assumed free meant...because that's usually what people are talking about in these discussions.

[dickay]

Of course, if you meant "removing profit" as in "completely from every single minute aspect of healthcare", than, fine, you're right, that'd probably set us back eons... But I assumed you meant removing profit from providing healthcare, because that's what I assumed free meant...because that's usually what people are talking about in these discussions.

yeah, i can see how you could draw those assumptions seeing how i mentioned nothing about private companies performing R&D and the creation of new medicines etc. in that same paragraph, or even the sentence prior to the one you took from my context.

enough though....:rolleyes: its all me.

[HoustonGM]

Those assumptions are entirely do to the fact that in these discussions, people are generally talking about the providing of healthcare when they discuss removing profit and such. They aren't talking about removing profit from every single aspect of healthcare down to the suppliers of needles or whatever. Sorry, it's not crazy for me to assume that you weren't talking about removing profit from every aspect of healthcare...considering I've never heard anybody even discuss that.

[filihok]

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//091218/480/1a97b6bfd0604ec9af99b0d4ba2815ea/

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091218/capt.1a97b6bfd0604ec9af99b0d4ba2815ea.health_care_overhaul_dcpm106.jpg?x=400&y=311&q=85&sig=euDmyW851eWbOYuZVlZnzQ--


Sen. John McCain, R-AZ., left, puts his hand on the Democratic health care bills during a news conference on Capitol Hill in in Washington, Friday, Dec. 18, 2009.

Ok, who's read it?

[ragecage]

http://www.bbhq.com/rolegov.htm

Posted from earlier tonite, dont think its really gonna work. Government cant do anything right.

I like the initial idea of it, but like I said they cant do it right.

[ragecage]

The pre-existing conditions idea I like though, I will give them some credit I guess.

[SirKodiak]

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//091218/480/1a97b6bfd0604ec9af99b0d4ba2815ea/

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091218/capt.1a97b6bfd0604ec9af99b0d4ba2815ea.health_care_overhaul_dcpm106.jpg?x=400&y=311&q=85&sig=euDmyW851eWbOYuZVlZnzQ--



Ok, who's read it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/UnitedHealth_Group_logo.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Wellpoint_logo.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Aetna.svg/233px-Aetna.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/Humanalogo.jpg
http://www.tbwe.com/pub/categoryitems/Cigna_Insurance_tn.jpg

[filihok]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/UnitedHealth_Group_logo.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Wellpoint_logo.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Aetna.svg/233px-Aetna.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/Humanalogo.jpg
http://www.tbwe.com/pub/categoryitems/Cigna_Insurance_tn.jpg

I said 'read' not 'wrote'

[dickay]

Heres what I don't understand, and maybe someone in here can shine a light on this for me.

The Healthcare plan from months ago that INCLUDED a PUBLIC OPTION would cost an estimated 1.2 Trillion dollars or so, or at least that is what was floated about. Of that 1.2 Trillion, half of it (approx. 600 billion) was coming from "cutting waste out of medicare/caid without cutting benefits". OK...if I were to buy all that then tell me this;

Why after removing the public option which was included growing govt. emensely is the bill still 1.2 TRILLION!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HELLO????????????????????????? I honestly haven't been able to follow the changes to the recent bills, and maybe after the holidays i'll get caught up...but from what i've heard the costs are the same??? The public option was the costly item. How hard and expensive is it to pass laws on how the private insurers must behave? It shouldn't grow govt. much....an oversight organization maybe. A Czar of course :p.....BUT NO PUBLIC OPTION SHOULD EQUAL SIGNIFICANTLY LESS MONEY!

Please someone explain this to me. Do I have something wrong with my rationale here?:mad::confused:

And one more question.....if there is some 600 billion in waste at medicare/caid as the democrats claimed, why are they no longer cutting that?

[filihok]

And one more question.....if there is some 600 billion in waste at medicare/caid as the democrats claimed, why are they no longer cutting that?

It's only waste when it leaves your pocket, not when it ends up in your pocket

[ragecage]

No you are perfectly fine dice, its the Government thats full of ****.

[dickay]

i stand a bit corrected. as i research this senate bill I find this;

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html


Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 -- as well as families earning more than $1 million -- would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. But instead of an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, it would impose a 40 percent tax on insurance companies that provide what are called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

So they are still cutting medicare. But what interests me most is these increases on businesses that ARE PROVIDED TOP OF THE LINE HEALTHCARE! Of course insurers will just pass that tax increase to their customers. Isn't that what we want business to do, provide quality healthcare??? All this is going to do is push them to reduce coverages, or eliminate them entirely and pay the penalty making more "uninsured" going to the market place with far less bargaining power since they are not in an employer program with a large group of employees!!