For all my liberal friends who keep harping that the majority support the heelath care proposals, see the link below.
Time to take the Blue Pill and see what is really going on...
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 8:28:22 AM
...snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Them screwing up this health care bill is no surprise. My only hope is that the final bill will be in some small way better than what we have now.
Someday, you can look your daughter in the eye, when she is diagnosed with a stage 4 carcinoma at the age of 50 that could have been detected and treated when she first developed it at at 46. You can tell her how wonderful the health care that just signed her death warrant is.
Portability
Abolition of preexisting condition denials
Coverage for almost everyone
And most importantly, several inflation containment changes and improvements (instead of just rationing).
And all at less than half the cost proposed.
...then there wouldn't be any health care bill at all. How many amendments did they let the GOP push through? 5000?
the offering of technical amendments to correct mistakes and in some cases simply delay the outcome because the starting material was a pile of garbage and was destined to remain that way. Only in the Senate Finance Committee was there even the appearance of GOP participation and God only knows why Grassley chose to make it look like what he did mattered one iota.
The Dems could have gotten 80% of what they wanted with 90% support, but they went for it all.
How many amendments did they let the GOP push through? Have you actually been paying attention at all?? If you had been paying attention you would know that the various GOP Senators and Repreusentatives have offered over 50 amendments. Some of those amendments have basically been attempts to ensure that Obama and the democrats keep their promises.
How many amendments have been added? Not one that I'm aware of yet. If you know of any GOP sponsored amendments that have been added please let me know. I can give you literally dozens of amendments that have been voted down by one committee or another.
Seriously? - "...what a shame to know that had they actually worked with the GOP there could have been..." - is that in jest or some sort of alternative thinking?
The Repubs aren't working with the President and the Dem's for political reasons, that's about it. Sen Jim Demint had the wonderful comment: "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him".
Let's be real, Republican's don't want effective health care legislation, as it's not in their best political interest. They fought Bubba Clinton back in the 90's, and did jack squat save for prescription-drug plan for the elderly, under Bush, and the count is still out on that one.
But maybe if they did work together, we could turn the if, ands, and buts into candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas. 
You are partially correct. They are doing some of that in hopes of blocking or stalling what the Dem’s presently have on the table. They have also attempted to make changes around the edges, to fix technical errors and plug loop holes (intentional or not) in order to minimize the damages.
What you fail to acknowledge or recognize is the time line involved. The GOP only started their present tactics AFTER it was clear they had been totally locked out of the initial drafting process. These bills were originally written in total privacy by the Dems. Republicans were not allowed into the room. Fortunately, the rules of the Senate (and to a lesser degree the House) allow for Republican’s offering of amendment.
"Rationing" has been thrown around as a scare tactic throughout the health care debate. Will there be true rationing of health care? Not exactly, but sort of, kind of, YES, there will be.
As a thread on this board noted last week, an independant panel has recommended changing the guidelines for mammorgrams to beginning regular screening at age 50 as opposed to the current guidelines that call for screening beginning at age 40. The sole purpose of the change in the guideline is to save money. The problem is, literally thousands of women under age 50 are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. Even a former director of the NIH has blasted the new guidelines as being cost cutting while ratcheting up the mortality rate.
Private insurance companies don't always follow gov't recommended guidelines for aproving covered tests and screenings. In some cases the guidelines simply don't provide sufficient preventive care, and insurance companies often will go above and beyond the gov't established guidelines. However, when the gov't gets into the insurance game, you can absolutely count on any insurance plan that involves the gov't, whether it is gov't backed or fully gov't funded, your policy WILL only provide the minimum standard of care suggested by the gov't.
In other words, any woman who has either gov't supplemented, or gov't supplied insurance can expect to start screening for breast cancer at age 50. Assuming she doesn't die of breast cancer before she gets to age 50 that is.
As I stated on that previous thread about the new standards, this July past, I buried a lady who was like my second mom. She was diagnosed at age 44 with breast cancer, had a double mastectomy, and battled cancer off and on for the next 6 years before dying at age 50. Under the new guidelines, she would never have seen the age of 50 after allowing her breast cancer to go untreated due to lack of screening.
Updating mammogram guidelines is only one step. In the coming months and years, you can absolutely count on further updates to guidelines that reduce the standard of care across the board, all in the interest of saving the gov't some money. Anyone who has argued that national health care will not reduce the quality of care has just lost the argument. The first tangible proof is in, and more will soon follow.
That they've been working on that recommendation for some time now, and most of the people who serve on that panel (which isn't really independent, they're appointed by the government) were appointed by the Bush administration.
I really believe it's just a poorly timed coincidence.
This panel's job is to examine the procedures, the financial aspects, the benefits or dangers of changing current recommendations, and the actuarial consequences of any suggested changes. They're basically bean counters who compare the money saved vs. the value of any additional lives lost. It may be morally abhorent, but that's the way things are done today. Auto companies look at the costs of a recall vs. the costs of lawsuits arising from injury or deaths caused by said defect, and make a decision to recall or not to recall based on those (strictly financial) findings. Of course if you or one of your loved ones are killed or injured because of the defect, it's another story, but that's the way the world works these days. This panel is doing exactly what the Big, capitalistic corporations have been doing for years.
and who has pre-existing conditions that would make it hard for me to get it, give me the blue pill.
But of course, I have a vested interest in it. So I'm in favor of anything that's going to get me covered.
Is it the best plan? Probably not. Is it even a good plan? That remains to be seen... but the fact is that the conservatives have never given a shit about healthcare other than as a political football to use against the dems. They fought Clinton on it, they're fighting Obama on it, but I can't seem to recall ANY conservative who's stood up and said "It's an embarrassment that this country, the wealthiest and most powerful in the world, is ranked only 37th in the health of our citizens, and has an infant mortality rate higher than Cuba (and New Caledonia, and are only slightly better than Croatia) and it's time to do something about it". They only offer an alternative plan after the dems made it clear that we ARE going to have a universal system in this country, something that EVERY other industrialized country in the world has.
Where were they, these conservatives who are "for the people"?
Ben Stein, a noted conservative, had a plan that I would have supported in a minute... his plan? Leave everything exactly as it is for people who currently are covered, force the insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, and write a check to the insurance companies for anyone who can't afford it on their own. Hey, I'm all for that!
How about this? Put a draconian tax on tobacco products, food with a fat content higher than a certain percentage, and alcohol. People are paying $9 a pack in NYC now... if that doesn't stop someone from smoking, $10 or $11 a pack isn't going to stop them.
Basically what I'm saying is that I don't care what kind of universal healthcare we end up with, as long as it's truly universal.
Yeah, I'm being a little selfish here, like any good capitalist would!
Pre-existing conditions - COVERED
Tort Refrom - DONE
More Competition in teh system - DONE
Just becuse you personally need something, doesn't mean you should back a bad bill. There are GOOD alternatives out there right now!!
If the Dems would go with what the Republicans have proposed, Obama could be signing that thing while he is eating his Turkey dinner!!
But NO!! Why?
1) It does not give the government a lot of control, which Dems do not like
2) It takes on the trial lawyers, who democrats are beholden to.
-- Modified on 11/23/2009 9:57:15 PM
Your solution is to forcibly take money from healthy, and/or responisble people, basically that reads, "my money" to pay for "your" health care.
That sounds a lot more like a socialist than a capitalist to me.
So what you're saying is that the "haves" bear absolutely no moral responsibility for the "have-nots". Fuck social security, fuck medicare, fuck any policy that tries to help those less fortunate than you.
How about those who inherited their wealth? Those who've never worked a day in their lives and have contributed nothing to society? Is it alright for them to say "fuck the poor"?
I'm sorry, but I feel that how truly CIVILIZED a society is is demonstrated by how it treats it's less fortunate citizens.
Heaven forbid that you suddenly found yourself poor or homeless. How whould you feel then??? I've experienced that first hand... three years ago I was making a very comfortable living and had one of the best healthcare plans available. I vacationed with pornstars to St. Croix, San Francisco, Jamaica and other exotic places. Now I'm living in a cheap motel and some days live on peanut butter and crackers. My only true asset is my computer, without which I'd go nuts.
Try living in my shoes for a year and let's see how true to your current philosophies you remain. Trust me, there are no poor consevatives. I'm not looking for hand-outs... I haven't applied for food stamps or any of the other programs available to me. But I don't feel that it's too much to ask that my country give me access to the same health benefits that I used to have.
And the bottom line is this... all things said and done, how much more is it really going to cost you to help the people less fortunate than you... a couple of hundred dollars a year? Hell, bet one less football game.
universal health care that effectively requires the healthy and responsible to pay for those who are not, that most certainly is more socialist than capitalist.
so don't expect a response from me.
I find it embarassing (& amazing) that the US is the ONLY industrialized modern nation that does not have
Universal health care for its citizens. And we spend about twice the per capita costs on health care as these other nations, yet our stastics for longevity & all health- related indices are significantly worse.
How can anyone NOT see that we desperatly need to correct this?
And I am amazed & not a little troubled by the ease with which falsehood & lies have been brought forward by fright tactics to defeat this badly needed initiative.
But I have little faith in the American electorate, & even less in our 'elected leaders', either largely bought & paid for by lobbying interests or totally indemnified to special interest voting groups in their home electorate. I don't know who the last true statesman in the US Congress was, but I don't think he/she is there now!
Yes we pay more, but also have the best health care system in the world (our mortality rate is not due to our health care system, but our lifestyles). Europeans walk and tend to be healthier than a lot of Americans. The fact that our mortality rate is so close to Europe's is a testament to how good it is.
Also, do not agree with your "scare tactics" message. Rationing is real. We see it in pretty much all socialzed medical systems.
Do we have gaps, yes, but the "fix" they are trying to put in just screws everybody. Remember, the liberal mentality does not "raise eveyone to an equal level", it "lowers everyone".
Faith in our elected leaders (or lack thereof). This is the one point we do agree on.
We're ranked 33rd in the world in infant mortality, just above Croatia, ranked 34th. Can you blame that on "our lifestyle" as well?
It's easy to simply say that we have "the best healthcare system in the world", but where's you proof of that, or even your rational? And by the way, we pay over twice as much for our healthcare than any other industrialized country.
There is absolutely no reason why a MRI machine costs 2 million dollars, other than the fact that the company can charge that much, and our healthcare system will pass the cost on to the patients. And since the majority of people are covered partially or in full by their employer, they don't give a rat's ass how much it costs to get an MRI.
In Japan, their healthcare system limits the price of an MRI to $98. Guess what? The MRI manufacturers "found" a way to produce their machines for less.
Why is it that American's are forced to pay the costs of R&D for a new drug? The big phara companies export the same medicine and charges substantially less for it elsewhere. Why is that, do you suppose?
I'll answer that question for you... it's because our politicians don't give a fuck about you... they're in the pocket of the pama companies and the healthcare insurance companies
THE REPUBLICANS EVIL PLAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A154BmAkryQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlYG3tO41SU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbVNXNW35k&NR=1
REPUBLICANS HEALTH CARE PLAN!!!!!
Republicans in Congress are slated to unveil their health care reform plan on Wednesday, a proposal that relies heavily on private mechanisms, contains no individual mandate, and offers tax incentives for families and individuals to help pay for coverage.
Titled "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009," the plan will be introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) at 11 a.m. The focus of the proposal -- an advanced copy of which was obtained by the Huffington Post -- is to push for a "guaranteed choice of coverage" in the private market through federal-state partnerships know as State Health Insurance Exchanges.
Individuals, the authors write, will have a "one-stop marketplace" to choose plans in the exchange, including the option of keeping their employer coverage and/or existing insurer. "Participating insurers," meanwhile, would be required to "offer coverage to any individual -- regardless of patient age or health history" though there is no mandate for an individual to purchase that insurance.
Where the plan seems likely to run into strong opposition is in its efforts to drastically move the insurance market away from employer-based or publicly operated plans. As championed by John McCain during the presidential campaign, The Patients' Choice Act of 2009 effectively ends tax breaks for employers who provide health coverage to their workers, choosing instead to give a $5,710 tax cut to families and a $2,290 cut to individuals to help them pay for health insurance coverage. Critics insist that this system would end up costing both business and consumers more over the long term. And some objective analysts have agreed. After all, families are currently paying approximately $12,300 a year for health care today.
The notion that guaranteed choice can be achieved under the private market is also predicated on several debated notions. The first is that an effective enforcement mechanism can be put in place requiring private insurers to offer coverage. The authors call for the creation of a non-profit, independent board "to penalize companies that cherry-pick health patients." The second concern is that the market itself might consolidate. The latter is already promising to be a big problem, a Democratic critic of the plan notes, as studies show the HMO and Preferred Provider Organization industries to be "highly-concentrated, or anti-competitive, in 96% of metropolitan areas."
There are, finally, some budgetary concerns with the Republican proposal. The authors call for investing in chronic disease prevention for problematic, long-term illnesses -- including providing $50 million annually for increased vaccine availability. They pledge major administrative improvements in Medicaid and Medicare as well. And they promise to ensure compensation for injured patients by encouraging legal reforms. All of this will require spending, and eliminating the tax exclusions for employer coverage can only get them so far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A154BmAkryQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlYG3tO41SU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbVNXNW35k&NR=1