The House DID IT!

At 11:11 PM.

One Republican votes for passage, a Rep. from Louisiana.

thereyet

Joseph Cao, the fellow who beat Dollar Bill Jefferson.

One step at a time. I am so grateful!

On to the Senate.....

AMEN

wonderful...hallelujah!

As we are one of the few "progressive" nations in the world without National healthcare---- congratulations!

I agree---one step at a time.

<< the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.>>

This part I really like.

It's great. Too bad nothing happens until 2013...which happens to be the very year I will qualify for Medicare. Blue Shield will still be gouging me in 2010, 2011 and 2012, I guess.

Don't any of you feel the least bit uneasy about this vote? A vote on a 2,000 page bill no one has read? In direct opposition to Pelosi's vow to post the full bill in the net for 72 hours? Why wouldn't she post it? I have not heard an answer to that. What is she afraid of? That we might not like it if we get to read it?

I too want health care reform. And the things you are cheering about above I am also in favor of. Especially tort reform, which won't happen. But this monstrosity holds God knows what.
Whether the senate will have anything to do with it is another matter, they can't even get a bill out of committee.

But I fear that this thing that the house just passed is a travesty of deceit and government waste. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

"Whether the senate will have anything to do with it is another matter, they can't even get a bill out of committee."

Which senate would that be? In the United States Senate, it has passed out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, which are the two committees of jurisdiction.

By the way, the bill has been posted for four days.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/pelosi-unveils-managers-amendment-finalizing-house-health-care-bill.php

The only change since then was the addition of the abortion amendment that passed today.

<<
BillJ on Nov 7, 09 at 9:38pm

Don't any of you feel the least bit uneasy about this vote? A vote on a 2,000 page bill no one has read? In direct opposition to Pelosi's vow to post the full bill in the net for 72 hours? Why wouldn't she post it? I have not heard an answer to that. What is she afraid of? That we might not like it if we get to read it?>>

That is a bunch of BS!

If you haven't read it, it is because you don't want to read it. Not a crime, but you can't at the same time spout the crap you just did above.

Here is the whole damn enchilada. Get busy.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text

Do note the date....11/29/09, that is TEN DAYS AGO. How is your math?

thereyet

<Do note the date....11/29/09, that is TEN DAYS AGO. How is your math?>

chuckle chuckle chuckle

So anyone who expresses any doubt about this bill gets told off by the Great Thereyet! And his math is as crappy as his attitude.

Chuckle, chuckle....

Of course it says 10/29/09. LOL

thereyet

Talk about CRAPPY, have you reread ANY of your posts this past couple of days bettyk? LOL

bettyk, do you really have a problem with someone getting called out on a lie?

I could care less if BillJ doesn't like the bill. He is perfectly free to oppose the Bill. Lie about the Bill not being posted for ALL to read, insinuate the speaker is "hiding something" by lying about the Bill not being posted?

You bet your ass I will call him on that crap.

thereyet

And another thing...Speaker Pelosi...afraid? LOL

That is funny.

thereyet

Wow that's great news!

Wonderful news! And now insurers will not be required to provide coverage for a protected Constitutional right of women to appropriate and affordable healthcare making it unaffordable for millions of women. WE've heard argument after argument about government NOT interfering with health care so how in the world can anyone justify telling women what procedures they can have and cannot have done.

a WONDERFUL victory and you should certainly be proud! A woman's right to abortion was mitigated by a House that was 60% Democratic and led by a liberal Democrat? By a female Speaker no less!

"Historical" and a happy dance is in order as the Amendment that is a dramatic departure from current law which would restrict a women's right to choose passed 240 to 194. Private insurance companies will have to drop the abortion coverage that they currently offer. The right to choose will die a death by a thousands cuts and this is a fatal one - for the millions who cannot afford to pay cash!

It was not open, it was not transparent ... and no one read the entire bill in its finished form before voting on it ... but not that it would have made a wit of difference.

And how soon will it be that a poor person will not seek treatment at an ER because he/she fears the threat of a huge fine and imprisonment?

Thank goodness it was "bipartisan!" Despite all those great "compromises," one Republican voted for it!

the promise was that the bill would be posted for 72 hours prior to voting on it ... that did not happen ... as the amendment that is far more restricting than the Hyde Amendment wasn't even attached until minutes prior to vote!
But, did anyone even realistically expect it to happen with a bill that was conjured up in secret meetings and secret deals behind closed doors?

And they dare to call themselves "progressives."

And the crowd under the bus gets bigger every day! This time it just happens to be all women - not just some.

I'm going to have to agree with beachplum. As much as I wanted Health Care reform, the abortion amendment is the worst thing I've heard. Somehow, women and minorities always get the shaft-if men had abortions I doubt this measure would have made it through committee.

After all that one 1 Republican voted for it.

indeed! we have "reform" - at least in the House! On the backs of the poor and the backs of the elderly and disabled with the deep cuts in their lifeline, Medicare. Those who have will continue to get; the rest, not so much! And the poor and elderly will continue to pay.

Now on to the Senate, which had a far worse bill, where prayer actually qualifies for reimbersement as "health care" and then to Committee ... maybe all those women should just start praying that they don't have an unwanted pregnancy! After all, the insurance will pay for that! Meanwhile, every one is screwed by this bill!

Yup, this is "historic" alrighty! Is it the first time that the legislature has thrown over half the population to the wolves and gave the POTUS exactly what he wanted?

Wow! those young 'ems sure showed us bitter knitters, haven't they? Will nothing awaken them up from their Kool-aide induced delusion? Or maybe it is just too embarrassing for them to admit that they've been had! Forced pregnancy and birth - unless you have the cash - who would have thought that it ever would really come to this! And what will the rest have? Coat hangers, off-label use of drugs and what else?

Just remembering all those threads way back when - and how the SCOTUS was not a threat to abortion rights but health care was. OH! NO! everyone shouted. Damn it! I hate it when I am right!

Now can I refuse to have my tax dollars used to send some 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to stop the death and killing there?

I really wanted a health care reform bill to pass. I don't know that this one is the one I would have designed, but after seeing so many without insurance, those who lose jobs lose their insurance, and the unbelievable cost, if one can even get it, when there are serious pre-existing conditions, I'm glad something got passed. It can be modified, and likely will be over the years, even before it is implemented.
We, too, are in the category that Medicare will likely kick in before we personally see any benefit from it, but that's OK.
It is a long way from perfect, but it is a start.

No need to print out any money, vios just yet. I'll just give up the 20Gs I'm paying per year I'm now paying and I can guarantee that it will cost us both less in taxes than my current premiums.

Bet you don't have to pay much now and someone, whether it be biz. or gov. is already picking up your tab.

ViosII, NOT having health insurance, and the resulting no health care, is also a problem for my freedom. Is it right to work all your life and lose your job and be unable to get insurance and then have to go through every cent you have, including your home, before you qualify for any kind of public assistance? How is that helpful to the economy, to declare bankruptcy, lose you home, and then, finally, get some health care?

And if we're talking about printing money, what about all the money spent in Iraq? I though the war in Afghanistan was probably legitimate, but Iraq? Nope, not in my opinion. And THAT was a mandate on MY personal freedoms, too.
Funny, personal freedoms are oft mentioned but the contradictions are amazing. Freedom to do what? Well, that depends on your point of view.

I suspect that the leadership decided that abortion was the least important thing they could throw to the slavering Blue Dogs to take home as a victory over the liberals in this debate. And they had to find a hippie to punch to make the thing acceptable to the villagers, so they decided to punch the desperate pregnant girl. She's used to it.

Since the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant with their obstructionism the Democrats have decided that in order to further the president's edict to change the tone and further bipartisanship they will just have to compromise with themselves.

Democrats everywhere will now be able to brag about furthering the Godly cause of forced pregnancy, while having also voted to pass health care.

If this passes it will have been an historic week for the denial of constitutional rights under our new "liberal" majority. I'm sure conservatives are very impressed and will vote for Democrats forever and ever because of it.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

I am very ambivalent about this bill.

Although I suspect it will help those without any healthcare insurance, I KNOW that it will cause more job loss in the healthcare sector as Drs. & Hospitals will no longer be able to employ as many people with the projected lower re-imbursement. Obviously it will also cause job loss in the Insurance industry.

Many of my friends in Nursing and other Health associated fields have either been layed-off or, more often, switched, involuntarily, to part-time (or hardly-any-time-ie 1-2 shifts a month) work making it difficult for them to pay their expenses, mortgages, etc...

Healthcare is not free and no matter your level of anger at the system, you cannot make it so....we will all pay in one way or another.

ViosII, my current plan ends December 31, thanks to an employer who downsized but promised to provide health coverage to normal retirement age. The company downsized but required those leaving to sign all sorts of documents not to sue for age discrimination and to sign a non-compete agreement, and that was supposed to guarantee continued coverage. Well, that was a big fat lie and here we are, or will be, with finding our own and paying dreadfully high premiums. And if I thought it was just us that would be one thing, but I know so many people in the exact same boat. And when you get to a certain age, there is almost always a pre-existing condition.
If this bill isn't the best, Republicans had many years to get one through rather than ignoring the problem. What did they propose?

trav: >>Many of my friends in Nursing and other Health associated fields have either been layed-off or, more often, switched, involuntarily, to part-time (or hardly-any-time-ie 1-2 shifts a month) work making it difficult for them to pay their expenses, mortgages, etc...<<

Understand your concern. However, you could ask many small-business owners how many people they had to lay off because of the rising costs of health coverage.

I do understand the concerns of small business owners. A reform that could have moved from employee based insurance was called SOCIALIST or worse, FASCIST. Cries of no government run health care pretty much put an end to that discussion.

The irony is that some of the provisions that could have cut health care costs were left out of the bill. That would have helped those small businesses, but now we'll have to find another way to keep this from hurting them so much.

The money gets stolen from medicare people to pay for this???

At last reading, small business was excluded from the taxes and penalties in the bill. You've seen otherwise?

thereyet, LOL, I love reading your responses to nasty posters.
Some remind me of Chichuaua's - nip and run!

should clarify - some of these nasty posters remind me of Chichuaua's!

ViiosII, this is nonsense! And it's a scare tactic used to divert responsible discussion.

Right now there are already millions of people who need hip replacements or MRI and can't get insurance period because they have preexisting conditions.

VIOSII
It's competition for the insurance giants, pharma giants, and for profit hospitals. Government insurance will be for people who select to have this as an option to priviate insurance.
If you don't like it don't buy it.
If you don't like it don't tell me I can't opt in to get it.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!
Let's continue to be the only 1st world country in the Western Hemisphere to deny citizens affordable health care!
Yes, that's the ticket.

READ NHS better than American health care... Posted by: Barbara on Nov 5, 09 at 8:54am
Posted in: Fodorite Lounge

nana: As a public service, I'm going to advise you to cease debating with a fool lest you be confused with same.

Especially since his posts have a tendency to disappear, in which case it will look as if you are talking to yourself.

j999
confused with same? i seriously hope that would not be conceivabe in anyone mind. but, thanks for the advice. i will take it.

j9,
I agree, but will more lay-offs help?
Many of these nurses have spouses wih (or employed by) small businesses.
It's a mess.

<<Many of my friends in Nursing and other Health associated fields have either been layed-off or, more often, switched, involuntarily, to part-time (or hardly-any-time-ie 1-2 shifts a month) work making it difficult for them to pay their expenses, mortgages, etc...>>

I don't know where you live, but having worked in hospitals my entire career and being married to an RN I have not seen any nurses for want of work.

We get calls from recruiters weekly trying to lure my wife from her current position.

Where area do you live in?

thereyet

I live in the rural south.
The hospital is always trying to recruit more nurses to replace departing nurses but still cutting staffing so they are overworked or asked to perform outside their area of expertise.
It's insane. Maybe this is less of a problem in large urban areas where nurses have more options?

thereyet,
Are you a hospital administrator or healthcare worker?

BP et al, not to worry, you will still benefit from the Health Care Reform Act despite your opposition to all things Obama.

Good to see you put a source on one of your posts today...though I could not find what it was you were sourcing in your link and can only assume your entire post was copied and pasted since you didn't indicate what part of your post can from elsewhere.

FWIW, I am disappointed with the Stupak Amendment...the only amendment that was passed after the Bill was posted on the internet. Apparently, there is a lot of opposition to funding for abortion in the Congress and country right now.

Fortunately, the abortion rights issue was not allowed to sink ALL the reform efforts that are before Congress right now, as the Republicans had indicated they would USE the Stupak amendment as a means to cut the legs off of any Reform efforts.

thereyet

<<Are you a hospital administrator or healthcare worker?>>

Yep

I am very liberal (this will come as a surprise to ... well probably no one!) and I have to say that I agree that althougth I support a women's right to chose, I don't think abortion should be paid for in a public health care option.
I think it is unfair to require those in the public who vehementaly oppose this on religious grounds.

thereyet,
ok. i get it.

BP points out
>A woman's right to abortion was mitigated by a House that was 60% Democratic and led by a liberal Democrat? By a female Speaker no less!<

About 1/4 of the Dems in the House voted for this amendment.

At this time, I see no reason to be pleased. I expect that the House/Senate compromise committee will come up with something that is even worse than what we see today.

I'll be very pleased to be proved wrong.

<<traveler85 on Nov 8, 09 at 7:42am

thereyet,
ok. i get it.>>

So now, please be so kind as to tell us what it is you "get".

thereyet

Trav

There is a shortage of qualified nurses in the cities. Many of our hospital nurses are recruited from different countries, here in NYC, there are many Filipinos.

Like all complicated laws there will be many unintended onseqiences. This could be a windfall for the health insurance industry in the near term as mandatory coverage is required and until the public option proves itself and the general public has confidence in it.

There will also be a burdern on the state insurance departments as the rates reflect the ban on dropping coverage and people and the increase of people with insurance. Rates will be weird for the next few years as the changes takes place.

As to BP and others who claim this bill is against women. I assume there are no women or children in the 36 million Americans who previously did not have healthcare and now will be covered.

A bill this big will have provisions written in part or full from lobbyists from both sides of the aisle. The provsion where the anti-trust laws no longer apply to health insurers should have its own beneficial and restrictive effects.

There was no hope for anyone's ideal bill. And the fact that it barely passed indicates the obvious that compromise was needed. Now a new fight begins, but the beginning of healthcare reform has started.

<<There was no hope for anyone's ideal bill. And the fact that it barely passed indicates the obvious that compromise was needed. Now a new fight begins, but the beginning of healthcare reform has started>>

As usual a voice of reason! Well said Aduchamp

I sure like that 5.4% tax on those higher incomes. Why only $1 million per household? Why not on those making $500,000 per household?

thereyet,
Sorry if i misunderstood the tone of your reply - it seemed to imply an "I am right you are wrong, you should share but I will not" philosophy that shocked me.

Adu,
Thanks for your input & I agree with Nanabee. Well said.
I do wish there was a way to improve the Health of those children (including teen mothers) whose parents don't bother to take them in for care because it is a low priority or because they have no transportation (no adequate public option here in the rural south). Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to legislate that issue.

We also have a lot of recruited Filipino nurses. This makes for interesting dialog with the heavily accented southern patients.

A bill that remakes 16-17% of the economy with only a 50.57% majority is not a good bill.

How many are not covered?

Sucks to be the 4% of Americans that still won't have health care insurance.

No, TY, I will NOT benefit from the reform ... I don't know how much I will be hurt, or even if I will, as it is unclear how high my premiums will be allowed to go before they are "reigned in." I was one of the many fortunate ones who still had the money to pay premiums privately and only in the last year did it make a difference in my lifestyle with the outrageous cost of INSURANCE, not care. You confuse my advocacy with selfishness - this has little to do with/for me and all to do with others ... as you are well aware that I have worked almost my entire career in the health care setting and in recent years with those who have Medicaid or subsidized or "free/charity care." The Amendement is anti-woman and posions the well. If you can't see that, you're not looking.

Nor will it benefit those millions of seniors and disabled who will have their benefits cut or the millions who will be shuffled into Medicaid which is now overwhelmed with long waiting lists for appointments and even longer waits for new patients because the providers simply will NOT see them - cannot afford to see them - in private practice. Nor will they see Medicare Advantage, HMO's and those on other policies ... but they are insured! In fact, my own hospital will NOT accept insurance from many HMO's and other companies - including major insurers such as Aetna. In fact, their employees are not covered for hospitalization at any other than their own hospital. But they are insured! YEA! And that is exactly what is going to happen down the road! People with crappy insurance, whether it is purchased for their own use or the gov't purchases it for them, will still be crap insurance - and because they cannot afford the co-pays that they will have with the crap insurance, they still won't get care. And, of course, it doesn't matter if your employer provides insurance IF it is a crappy plan that covers little. Why is the majority of bankrupties filed by those who have INSURANCE?

Yes, there are some good things in the bill if you hunt for them. Maybe you should try reading it. My discussion today focuses on the betrayal of women by the "liberals," the progressives or Obamacrats or whatever they wish to call themselves. The Constitutionally GUARANTEED right to Choice is NOT determined by "popularity." It is law. And slowly - maybe not so slowly - each new opportunity is putting more and more restrictions on that Choice. But it certainly was "popular" when Mr. Obama was running for office and was used by him to procure votes.

Maybe you don't recall the '60's when women died from botched abortions, either self-induced or done by others because they did not have the money to go to a private clinic to have the termination done safely. I do. Or maybe you think that forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is a small price to pay. I don't.

But then Obama promised Waxman that it wouldn't survive the Committee ... we'll see. He's so good with promises, isn't he? BTW, this has little to do with Obama (other than his taking credit for it) as he punted the whole thing to Congress and has distanced himself from it. My fight is not with Obama at all but with Congress - and in fact with Nancy Pelosi who sold out her own party and gender!

I'm curious, TY, how many more republicans would have voted against it if the Amendment had not passed? ONE? Your longic, "as the Republicans had indicated they would USE the Stupak amendment as a means to cut the legs off of any Reform efforts" escapes me! It was the Blue Dogs, members of the progressive party, Democrats who fought AGAINST reform if abortion were funded, not Repubicans! You knew, or anyone with half a brain, knew that the Republicans weren't gonna vote for it no matter how far right the Democrats would go ... and they certainly did all they could to please their rightwing buddies and the industry.

Any liberal who says that abortion and the right to chose, a basic right of women's reproductive health care guaranteed by the Constitution, should not be supported for ALL women - but just for those who can afford it - is not a "liberal" by any definition. Any religion and its beliefs should be seperate and apart from governemnt control - especially when it comes to a private personal matter such as health care. But then the Obamam Administration is supporting billions of dollars going to Abinstence Eduction thru the faith-based initiatives so I'm not surprised at this decision.

Meanwhile almost everybody's going to get health care, except for those who can't prove they're here legally, except for those who will be able to afford the premiums but have nothing left over for actual care (deductibles) and except for those who have a uterus but not enough money to free themselves from forced pregnancy.

the vast majority of unpaid labor associated with raising children has fallen on women. Just as the career costs, Social Security benefit costs, unemployment eligibility costs, and most of the other opportunity and financial costs associated with two decades of working for helpless people who can only pay you in hugs, fall largely on women.

On top of all this volunteer work they do, society has collectively decided not to give a damn that women are paid less when they are paid, nor that their greater healthcare costs have to be paid for out of either these smaller salaries, or family money whose use they often have to justify to someone with greater social status.

And today, a few too many Democrats are coming out to stand with Bart Stupak and basically say that they're fine with this unpaid labor of love becoming mandatory for women who can't pay to avoid it, nor have the patience of saints to be abstinent.

...

There is no other circumstance in the present-day US in which a human being is forced to risk their life or health for someone else

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15806/stealing-womens-lives

and the Right-to-Chose fight is hardly about me! I am far beyond the time that it would benefit me!

I really hope that as part of this they have a provision to cut costs. Maybe something like pay reductions for anyone who works in the medical field that makes a salary well above the average American. Certainly, we need to look at what is "fair" and make sure that those who work in the medical field are compensated in-line with society as a whole.

That's fair I think. Afterall, many of them will effectively become quasi-public employees and should be compensated as such.

'the fight for health care reform has started'

Wow! and I thought it had been going on since Roosevelt's time ... and I remember it during Truman's time ... Nixon's time ... Clinton's time ...

and we still don't have it.

When we see the FINAL bill, then we can say whether there is a victory or NOT!

They don't care about a woman's right to choose bp, because anyone in the "upper strata" can get an abortion anytime the want. I had a friend many years ago who went to Japan.

I find in interesting that many who don't want abortion to be available, also don't want birth control, or heaven forbid, the "morining after pill". Sanctity of life? What about the sactity of life once the baby is OUT of the womb?

So, public money shouldn't pay for abortion, but it's fine for public money to pay for that child to be shuffled through the foster system, or even better, life through a childhood of abuse. They also forget, that not all women of poor circumstances wants to HAVE an abortion. I can't believe the women that throw other women under the bus.

I won't be "benefiting" from any of this either. We will get a bill...in BOTH senses of the word.

<<thereyet,
Sorry if i misunderstood the tone of your reply - it seemed to imply an "I am right you are wrong, you should share but I will not" philosophy that shocked me.>>

I asked a simple question, about a statement that seemed contrary to my experience.

You asked me a simple question, which I answered.

I then was responded to with a snarky post about "getting it".

I asked another simple question..."What is it that you "get"?

And now a another simple question....What have I not "shared"?

For the most part on these boards, I try to answer fair questions when asked. What about you?

thereyet

<<I won't be "benefiting" from any of this either. >>

Really? How do you figure? Nothing in the Bill will apply to you?

thereyet

<<Maybe something like pay reductions for anyone who works in the medical field that makes a salary well above the average American. Certainly, we need to look at what is "fair" and make sure that those who work in the medical field are compensated in-line with society as a whole.>>

Fair enough, same should apply to ALL those who work on Wall Street/financial industry as well.

thereyet

By the time it kicks in, I'm either going to be on Medicare or dead.

Well, I believe for those firm's that accept public money that has been the case. That's a concept that should be expanded, I think to the medical related fields. If we're going to cut costs, I don't know how you can do that without across the boards reductions. Surely, 25% declines is a good starting point.

<<I'm curious, TY, how many more republicans would have voted against it if the Amendment had not passed? ONE? Your longic, "as the Republicans had indicated they would USE the Stupak amendment as a means to cut the legs off of any Reform efforts" escapes me!>>

Really? Is it that hard to understand? The answer to your question doesn't occur to you at all?

I suggest you think about it a little longer, and then if you need some more help...I'll spell it out for you.

thereyet

<<Well, I believe for those firm's that accept public money that has been the case. >>

Do you think there are many "Firms" in the Financial industry/Wall Street that have not been touched by the bailout?

LOL

thereyet

<<Any liberal who says that abortion and the right to chose, a basic right of women's reproductive health care guaranteed by the Constitution, should not be supported for ALL women - but just for those who can afford it - is not a "liberal" by any definition.>>

Do you know of ANY Congress Member who claims to be a "Liberal" who voted FOR Stupak-Pitts?

If so, please post the name.

thereyet

I also think that all physicians should be required to accept Medicare and Medicaid. Too much cherry picking going on in physician practices already.

Where I work...60-70% of our patients are Medicaid.

No one is getting rich on that. Sorry to burst Ryan's bubble there. He must be accustomed to the Country Club set of physicians.

thereyet

I think anymore, if someone wants to be the "rich" doctor, they will become a plastic surgeon or a dermatologist.

There has to be a problem with this bill for Dennis Kucinich to vote against it.

I agree with bp regarding the abortion amendment. Obama has shown again that women and women's rights are not important to him.

Why aren't those who go after the teachers' unions also going after the nursing unions? And even more so, the right-arm of Obama, the SEIU that represents many of the service workers who are hospital/nursing home staff? Why just the doctors?

Isn't capitalism charging what the people will pay. After all, all they have to sell is their knowledge and experience. It's not like making widgets!

The nurses that I work with can't wait to leave ... they can't stand the conditions and the fact that they complain that they are continually understaffed so they become stay at home moms, find another career or move on up to administration - especially now that the CNP has become the vogue, they move on. In the local hospital, they have volunteers making beds and doing all sorts of chores that staff would be required to do while still being a for-profit organization that pays dozens of administrators and the CEO very big bucks.

LOL ... thereyet. Democrats are supposed to be "liberals" by definition! Except the Democrats have left the liberals to become republican-lite ... I'm glad to see that you admit that the liberals have no voice - and that the Democrats have joined with the Republicans in their anti-woman strategies that were so evident during the campaign.

<G>

No thanks, darlin', but thanks. I don't need YOUR help or anyone who thinks as you do! But then you can go down the list of those who voted for the amendment yourself - and the bill ... but then it was hard for you to even find what I linked to, so I understand.

as for the acceptance of "public" money ... I think that the providers already take a big hit in that - my cardiologist gets a whopping $20 from Medicare for an office visit to keep someone's heart ticking and if he were to see Medicaid pts., he would recieve $6. How much more can we punish them? Meanwhile the "cost" of my ER visit not so long ago wa billed at over $8000 but yet my private insurance only paid 'em $500 (and I had a copay of $100). The physicans have already cut their deal with the new "reform." And they will receive "incentives" to keep their patients well and reimbersement won't be changed ... as will hospitals who cut down on the recivitism - even tho someone's insurance is cut off and they are discharged too early.

They "import" the foreign workers, provide them with room and board (and educational benefits to continue their educ) and a nice salary too - far more than they could make at home.

wow! isn't it great that "children" can stay on the parents' policy until 27 ... wow! most "children" I know were married and had children of their own by then or out in the world actually paying thier own way - rather than living off their parents until they were 27! Guess that just leaves more time for them to finish a 4-year-degree in 7 years or sit home in their parents' basement in the jammies blogging!

<G>

<<
I agree with bp regarding the abortion amendment. Obama has shown again that women and women's rights are not important to him.>>

Look, we know you hate Obama. Please let us know how president Obama has "shown that women and women's rights are not important to him". Are you saying he encouraged Stupak? If you are, can you point those of us who would like to know, where you come up with that assertion?

thereyet

Did he sat anything against it? Did he mention it at all?It isn't necessary to actively encourage something. Just failing to speak against it is enough. Obama showed throughout the primaries by his actions, his staff's actions and the music he chose to play that women are not a priority for him.Of course, you will disagree because you will defend anything he says and does. And you're not a woman.

Kids on parents policy till 27. Isn't it wonderful that education and housing cost so much that "kids" never are able to leave? Both my brothers were married and self supporting at 21, and I was at 23. We had nothing, no money, every day was a struggle, but maybe we were luckier than some, our parents didn't have anything to give us, so we made it on our own, or we didn't.

BP, I ain't your "darlin'".

If you can't indicate what part of your post is "borrowed from the link you provide, it WILL be assumed that your entire post is "borrowed", as you have historically shown a penchant to attribute others words as your own.

<<LOL ... thereyet. Democrats are supposed to be "liberals" by definition!>>

Really? What dictionary have you been reading?

Your logic is twisted by your hatred.

thereyet

thereyet,
I also try to be honest and fair.
I guess when I asked if you were a hospital administrator or healthcare worker, the Yep response seemed abrupt and elusive - must be my own over-sensitivity.
I did respond that I live in the rural south and I suspect our demographic is a bit different than the SF Bay area.

"Sucks to be the 4% of Americans that still won't have health care insurance."

They won't have health insurance because they decide they'd rather pay the fine than buy health insurance. Make the fine higher, or throw more money at health insurance subsidies, and that number will be lower.

"There has to be a problem with this bill for Dennis Kucinich to vote against it."

Dennis Kucinich was the only liberal who voted against it. Maybe there's a problem with Dennis Kucinich.

t85, it is only elusive in so much as I post too much personal information as it is, which has been thrown back in my face in the past, and also led to people who disagree with me "investigating" my professional life as some sort of way of letting me know they know who I am.

Yeah, that is kind of creepy, and stuff like that happens on this forum.

Still would like to know what you "get" by my admission that I am "a hospital administrator or healthcare worker".

thereyet

Whatever happened to the promise that if you like your coverage you have now, you can keep it? Well according to the House bill that would be only for menfolk not for the women because it is the one that eliminates reproductive care!

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

or maybe you don't recall the speech where he was heckled and booed! Pelosi is correct when she states that this couldn’t have happened without Obama’s “vision.”

so be sure that even when you are feeling "a little bit blue" even tho it's PERIODIC, if you are pregnant, you gotta have CASH.

Ah! answering the call of history and healthcare is granted to men! First, they made sure that women’s medical needs would not be considered part of basic healthcare. Then, they added in an extra special amendment to make sure that abortion wouldn’t be covered. Even by private plans ... any insurance plan that participates in any way in the new exchange or receives any subsidies or is paid for with any tax credits, will not be allowed to offer abortion coverage.

And women support this! Democratic women support this. And not so long ago, the Roe card was used to sway an election!

“Democrats have just gutted abortion rights more effectively than Republicans ever did.

Welcome to change.

1. in January Obama asked Democrats in congress to dump contraceptives pay from the stimulus

2. During the SOTUS (maybe? one of his bestest speeches) he stated that FOCA wasn’t his priority and abortion is not a freedom issue but a moral and ethical one

did he once appeal to Congress, to the House or even indicate that he was opposed to this amendment. His vote was "present" and his silence spoke volumes just like he does for all other issues of equity.

Has he even addressed EPA?

This has NOTHING to do with hating Obama but it has everything to do with every women's right to reproductive health care as a part of basic their health care and the right of choice.

thereyet,
i "got" that i should shut up and leave the room- had nothing to do with your career.
Now i understand your reluctance to be more specific if you were cyber-stalked. Creepy and scary. No offense meant but this exhausts and depresses me. i obviously shared too much too and so now am also at risk of the creepiness and hating.

BP, to be clear, you are saying abortion is a basic need for women? If it isn't abortion you are talking about, what basic needs of women are you talking about?

thereyet

t85, misunderstanding, now understood. Thanks.

thereyet

Correct me if I'm wrong, but birth control isn't paid for either...is Viaga still on the list of approved drugs?

This will be a Victory for America when the Senate and President pass this bill!!!

I fought with the corporate insurance industry for many years to get health insurance due to my pre-existing condition. People like me could have lost everything if they became ill and many have. Spaghetti dinner fund raisers to pay for health care to save lives should not be a necessity in America. We are not a third world nation and we deserve better.

Just this morning I watched a portion of the religious program "The Coral Ridge Hour" on TV. There was some jackass denouncing the health reform bill and telling everyone not to support it. Mr. Jackass claimed it was a Socialist plot to ruin America! He obviously has full health coverage, thinks he will always have it, and does not care about people who have different circumstances than his self-righteous self.

Power to the American people.

"Power to the American people."

The rest of your post suggests you mean: "Power to the American government?" Certainly you don't want to empower the self-righteous Mr. Jackasses.

>>#
ViosII on Nov 8, 09 at 8:10am

READ THE BILL then come back and tell me you will be happy with it vs. your current plan, which you won't have the option to keep, including your Dr. READ THE BILL.<<

Vios, please point out the provision in the bill which says that I won't be able to keep my current health plan if I choose to. Did you read the bill? All of it? I'll bet anything you DIDN'T READ THE BILL. (By the way, this 's for you).

This is certainly not the bill I would have preferred but it's a start.

Hey adu,

>the fact that it barely passed indicates the obvious that compromise was needed....<

Only one Rep voted "aye". The Dems compromised with themselves.
..............................................
Hey JS,
>...A bill that remakes 16-17% of the economy......<
I think that you are giving it too much force. This current bill is nowhere near as important as the one that gave us HMO's in Clinton's first term.

This is what Paul Starr (one of the staffers who helped to write the Clinton plan, had to say in 1995

"The opposition had focused attention on what those with good health care might lose.......Sight unseen, oppose it" was Republican strategist Bill Kristol's advice on Senator Mitchell's attempt to craft a compromise proposal........the ideological and interest-group opponents of reform were able to change the subject. Instead of health care, the focus of debate became government,.......By putting his personal signature on health care reform, moreover, Clinton gave the Republicans an incentive to defeat it and humiliate him rather than compromise. The Clinton label also led to confusion of public feelings about the president as a person with the entire issue of health care reform......Because we had failed to edit the plan down to its essentials and find familiar ways to convey it, many people couldn't understand what we were proposing. There were too many parts, too many new ideas, even for many policy experts to keep straight.....the sharply partisan climate of 1994 and fear-mongering by the opposition were hardly conducive to splitting differences.........Republicans that preferred to stymie progress on an issue that symbolized the president's agenda; Democrats who did not want to offend one or another constituency by supporting legislation that unavoidably alienated some supporters........ the mainstream plan was the only one that was fiscally defensible. It financed an extension of coverage up to 91 or 92 percent of the population by imposing a cigarette tax, a tax on high-cost health plans, and cuts in Medicare........... Coverage of pregnant women and children would have been nearly universal. The proposal also included insurance market reforms and voluntary purchasing alliances.........version of managed competition. For all its flaws, the bill would have been a historic advance........There was only one problem: It didn't have much public support. It was too big for conservatives, too little for liberals. Democrats in Congress who genuinely wanted a compromise found that hardly any organized constituencies would swallow the bitter pill the mainstream group was offering. The elderly saw the proposal as cutting Medicare without providing anything in return; unions saw it as taxing high-cost health plans--the kind some union members still enjoy--without the guarantee of coverage "that can't be taken away".....................
"The lesson for next time in health reform is faster, smaller. We made the error of trying to do too much at once, took too long, and ended up achieving nothing".

(Paul Starr, "What Happened to Health Care Reform?" The American Prospect no. 20 (Winter 1995): 20-31).

<<Only one Rep voted "aye". The Dems compromised with themselves. >>

Yep, the price of having a big tent. Surprised you found it necessary to point out the obvious.

thereyet

Josh on Nov 8, 09 at 1:32pm
"Power to the American people."
The rest of your post suggests you mean: "Power to the American government?"
______________________________________________

No Josh. Power to the American people. Our Government is of the American people in this battle. We have spoken.
______________________________________________

"READ THE FREAKIN BILL. You will be forced on Government healthcare whether you want it or not. No option. READ THE BILL and turn off CNN."

Calm down Vios. You are absolutely wrong! Tell your senator to read the bill for God's sake. Republican senators refuse to read it and they are the people who will vote on it! Tell them to quit Whining that it is too much for them to read. If they refuse to do their homework they should be sent to bed without their .

Hey Cref,

>Sanctity of life? What about the sanctity of life once the baby is OUT of the womb?<

I believe that it was a Herblock cartoon that showed a politician hugging a pregnant woman and exclaiming about her "gift from God". In the next panel, same politico, same woman with a child in her arms, being excoriated about her "welfare brat".

Hey TY,

>Are you saying he encouraged Stupak? <
I wouldn't. I would say he did nothing to try defeat the amendment. It fits with his philosophy to get "something", with his belief in "bipartisanship", and with his stated opposition to supporting abortion for anything other than rape, incest and "the physical health" of the mother.

>....you are saying abortion is a basic need for women?<

To the extent that not being forced to carry an unwanted child to term and bring it into the world is a basic need - YES.

It is no less important than
the right for same sex couples to marry.
medical treatment for ED.
having Medicare provide for "obesity related" health issues.
having Medicaid provide domestic violence counseling and support.
physical examinations
acupuncture
eye exams
etc, etc, etc

From the mouth of Donna(I am uncommitted) Brazile :

"Democratic Strategist Donna Brazile said on the roundtable this morning that she thinks the Stupak Amendment which was added to the health care bill that passed the House last night effectively makes abortion illegal. Will that provision survive the Senate? Was it smart politics for the Democrats?"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/brazille-stupak-amendment-outlaws-abortion.html

I doubt the amendment will be in the final bill as it is today.

I expect it will be pared back to mirror the Hyde amendment.

Unfortunately it was an amendment that threaten to derail the entire process. As it turned out, the Republicans did not conspire to vote present, allowing the passage of the amendment, which gained the necessary votes by conservative Dems for the final House Bill.

thereyet

Rant away.

The bottom line is that our current method of care- Fee for service results in horrible overutilzation of paid services and lack of access for uninsured. And the cost is escalating out of control.

Single payer is the only way to go. It's just a matter of time.

As this bill is still in the making I will reserve my dissent, if any until the end.

As it stands now my selfish need to have my sons covered is my only concern. I believe with heart that abortion should not be addressed in this bill. A woman's right to make that decision needs to be protected. I do not have the luxury to be able to battle for what is a right cause.

I hope in the end the abortion compromise will be dealt out of the bill.

Placename,

"Single payer is the only way to go. It's just a matter of time."

I hope so.

Here's an interesting question. Will Doctor's be forced to take insurance plans? What will prevent a surgeon from saying that he takes no insurance? How about a GP or any other doctor where they have options?

The surgeon who performed by surgery doesn't take any insurance which allows him to pick and choose his patients.

What will prevent doctors from simply saying they don't take insurance. They will be paid at the out of network rate, but then the difference will be yours to pay.

"What will prevent a surgeon from saying that he takes no insurance?"

The fact that only a minuscule portion of his potential patients could afford to pay him out of pocket.

They don't want something like abortion to stand on it's own. Like a lot of things, they tag in onto a bill and it's true ramifications get lost in the shuffle.

Ryan - There aren't enough people who have the money to pay doctors who don't take any insurance, to support a whole slew of new doctors taking this route. The few doctors who choose not to take insurance have patients are elite (financially). They have money. The vast majority of Americans do not fall in this category.

Personally, I have no use for a physician who's interest in money supersedes his interest in his patients welfare.

thereyet

thereyet- You would be disgusted to hear what goes on in physician practices.

Money is the ONLY motivator for the vast majority of specialists I see- Gastroenterologists, Dermatologists, Urologists, Radiologist, Orthopedic Surgeons.

There have been clear ramifications to the reduced payouts from insurance companies. More tests, physicians adding equipment, opening their own affiliated labs and requesting tests, etc, etc.

There will be ramifications. Don't assume there won't be. Not a reason to say don't pass the bill, but more a reason to not be shocked when you start hearing of them.

In terms of doctors putting their own financial needs ahead of patient care, it isn't ahead of patient care, it's ahead of getting squeezed over and over.

Ask any OB/GYN in New Jersey about the challenges they face with balancing patient care against an ever increasing malpractice insurance rate.

Double the number of patients for 1/2 the pay per patient. Ramifications will be unavoidable. But, don't be pissed if it's you that has to deal with it.

<<thereyet- You would be disgusted to hear what goes on in physician practices. >>

Placename....I work VERY closely with MDs/Specialists of a very high order...and their patient care load is 60-70% Government insured. In fact, their patients typically can NOT be privately insured due to the diagnoses they have.

Please re-read my post....

<<Personally, I have no use for a physician who's interest in money supersedes his interest in his patients welfare.>>

Nowhere in that statement do I claim that money is NOT an issue.

If you have a physician who's interest in money supersedes his interest in your welfare...I suggest you find another physician.

thereyet

The house bill will not socialize medicine, cause people to lose their current coverage, or cause the government to go bankrupt.

Reality:
<<1. insurance exchanges for people who don't have employer coverage and a government insurance option to compete with private plans.
2. subsidies to help households earning up to $88,000 a year for a family of four buy coverage.

3. A historic Medicaid expansion that would provide free health care to all Americans with incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

4. A surcharge on taxpayers who earn more than $500K a yr or $1 million a year for families.
5. A crackdown on the insurance industry, including a ban on coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions.>>

This bill will provide affordable insurance for all Americans and guarantee coverage to almost every American.

Really, how can people in good conscience be against this?

"how can people in good conscience be against this?"

Because they didn't get enough cash sent their way.

"Representative Cao (R) acknowledged he extracted some White House pledges to help his district deal with the continuing impact of Hurricane Katrina in exchange for his vote. "

<<Really, how can people in good conscience be against this?>>

Uhhhh, people of "good conscience" aren't against this.

thereyet

touche! thereyet - i like how you think!

About that 27 year old getting coverage, I for one appreciate being able to have my son under my coverage throughout his college career.

Pretty hard to pay for his own coverage while studying and not making money.

thereyet

From the AP,

>The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate........... The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.<

It appears that any public option will be removed, if there is a bill at all.

Ira, I heard the same thing on the radio..the NPR station. I refuse to get excited one way or the other until a final bill is passed. Like thereyet regarding his son, I have been so worried about my grandsons obtaining health insurance once they can no longer be on their father's health insurance plan as since they both have a history of asthma in the past as the way things stand now I imagine they will not be able to obtain insurance. And with our economy I wonder if they will obtain jobs that include health insurance.

The unbalanced and uneducated fail to admit or understand that the lack of universal health insurance in the USA leads to America being the most uncompetitive market in the western world.

This mean thats every single first world company except for those in the USA does not have to pass on health insurance costs on to the cost of their products. These costs are double in the USA than in the rest of the first world.

The lack of universal health care in the USA also means that anyone who wishes to start their own company can never do so if any member in their family has a pre-existing condition. This is because they won't be able to obtain health insurance.

Conservative neocons are the enemies of justice, freedom, capitalism and liberty.

Ah the power of capitalism to control the market despite the legislature trying to do the right things for the country. Well said RBCal.

<<It appears that any public option will be removed, if there is a bill at all.>>

If this were true, why do the Rs look and sound so blue?

thereyet

Awwwwww, vios con dios.

thereyet

Yay!

thereyet 5:53pm

If you have a physician who's interest in money supersedes his interest in your welfare...I suggest you find another physician.

If doctors were really interested in their patients care and not how the bill was to be paid we wouldn't even be having this thread. I have sat in too many waiting rooms and heard the receptionist talking on the phone and if the 'insurance quesions' weren't answered to the receptionist's satisfaction then no appointment was made.

I sat at the hospital emergency room with my husband who works in construction in Michigan, which means he hasn't worked in two years. The 'doctor' came in with bad news and more bad news. He said my husband had a blood clot in his leg and that is very bad news w/o insurance. Stupid me jumped in and said he has insurance on my plan. I really wished I would have waited to see what he would have continued to say when he thought there was no insurance.

I know that doctors have to pay outrageous malpractice insurance, but I also know that most doctors in the United States have jumped on the private insurance bandwagon and are accustomed to receiving the customary payment for care and won't accept anything else.

<<Maybe something like pay reductions for anyone who works in the medical field that makes a salary well above the average American. Certainly, we need to look at what is "fair" and make sure that those who work in the medical field are compensated in-line with society as a whole.>>

That’s fine with me as long as the “average American” works 36 hour shifts for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years; gets out of school (after 23-30 years in school/training) $200,000 in educational debt, paying off interest and principal into middle age; continues to work nights and weekends (after a full day at the office, unlike other health care workers on 8 or 10 hour shifts); carries many thousands of dollars in malpractice insurance; carries at times moment-by-moment life-and-death responsibility, etc.


<<What will prevent doctors from simply saying they don't take insurance. They will be paid at the out of network rate, but then the difference will be yours to pay.>>

They can do that now; it has nothing to do with the House bill.

Further, cuts are already well underway in Medicare. Cardiac imaging is already (PRE-House bill) being cut 36% for 2010 Medicare rates. Those are the tests you can get so that the cardiologist doesn’t have to take you into the Cath lab and do pretty invasive procedures, not to mention running up even higher bills for use of the Cath lab (over the imaging room). Completely counter-productive over the long haul.

Why are providers being bashed? I don't know of any making $25 million or billion as the health insurance mob do.

Yeah, that's why the AMA has backed the Public Option.

Again, I made no statement saying that money was unimportant. I stated that interest in the welfare of the patient should supersede that of interest in money.

I see that every day. I suggest that if you don't see that, find another Dr.

thereyet

I think what I was trying to say is that if doctors treated everyone equally regardless of ability to pay, then we wouldn't need the government to intervene. If a doctors only interest was your physical well being, then s/he, the doctor would work with you on a payment plan or treat you on your ability to pay.

I think it is a doctor self-inflicted wound. The insurance companies say that a doctor visit for a sore throat is worth x amount of dollars so the doctors will not take less than that amount and unless you can pay that amount at the time of the visit they will not see you. How many doctors offices have a sign in the window that payment is due on the day of treatment? I haven't been in one that doesn't say that.

<<Why are providers being bashed? I don't know of any making $25 million or billion as the health insurance mob do.>>

Me neither.

Ryan bashes the providers because I suspect he has some Wall Street interest in the insurance industry.

Am I wrong, Ryan?

thereyet

Again, I made no statement saying that money was unimportant. I stated that interest in the welfare of the patient should supersede that of interest in money.

I see that every day. I suggest that if you don't see that, find another Dr.

thereyet

Can you give me the name of a doctor to call who will take a new patient who does not have insurance? I am talking about a regular doctor's office, not a county health care office. Because in Michigan I hear my parents say that the only place they can get treated or get their children treated is at the county health department or the county hospital.

Well, I can't help you but where I work, the children will be taken care of.

thereyet

So, I guess my next question to you then would be.. If you see every day doctors who put their patients welfare before money, then why are you for the national health care plan? In your world patients are seen and treated without regard to an interest in money.

We need nationwide whatever your corner of the country has.

<<Can you give me the name of a doctor to call who will take a new patient who does not have insurance>>

Can you tell me a place where a doctor will get free rent, free supplies, free exam tables, free stethescope etc., free telephone service, free call coverage to take a day off once in a while like "average Americans," free housing, free groceries, free insurance (hazard, premises, malpractice, free health insurance for his or her own family), free higher education for the kids, free college, medical school, & training for him or herself as well....

When you do I could probably find you a doctor who would be happy to take the deal treat people for free.

Cg, to answer your question, we do indeed have county health care in our area for the uninsured, including a new hospital, the only retrofitted one in the area. Many of the same MDs work there as well as the "private" (nonprofit, theoretically) local hospital.

*None* of the internists or primary care specialty MDs in our area have much room for new patients, because few want to do primary care under these conditions.

For example -- in 1977, 70% of the average medical school class went into internal medicine.
Last year it was 7%.

Why? it's high work load, horrible hours, and low reimbursement-- too low to stay in business for many, particularly galling with the hospital and insurance executives with a fraction of the education and effort make many times their pay, and with no overhead.

annw--nope can't tell you that. My husband works in construction, pours basements for a living he pays rent, pays for a telephone, pays employees, pays liability insurance, workers comp insurance, pays for his employees' health insurance, owns his own panels (stethescope), owns his own trucks (exam tables) and when someone calls and asks for a wall to be poured, guess what, he doesn't ask if they have insurance. He bids the job and if he gets it he goes out and pours the wall and hopes he gets paid for it. And the only days off he has is when he doesn't have any work to do, which has been quite a few in the past few years.

I would love to see a doctor still in business with as few customers as the construction industry has seen in the past few years.

Please don't take me wrong, I am not trying to be a doctor basher. I know there are plenty of good doctors out there, but the doctors of the 70s are gone. There are very few 'Marcus Welbys' out there. Whether it is the insurance industry, the drug industry or just the me industry. People become doctors now to make money not to help people which is why the quote you have, annw:

For example -- in 1977, 70% of the average medical school class went into internal medicine.
Last year it was 7%.

Why? it's high work load, horrible hours, and low reimbursement-- too low to stay in business for many

says it all. Most new doctors are in in for the money.

<<In your world patients are seen and treated without regard to an interest in money.>>

Did I not make myself clear?

I never said money was NOT an issue. I am pretty tired of hearing that Medical providers are money grubbers. If you want to avoid the Medical providers who put money interests over their patients, just stay away from the country club set. The grossly paid corporate executives are the ones filling their offices. No need to go there for decent health care.

If you are one of those who thinks you need a specialist for everything...get a corporate executive position.

If you don't have insurance or can't afford insurance or want those who don't have or can't afford insurance to be cared for...then get behind the Senators who can make this happen.

My Hospital is in a pinch, like many others because they do so much care for those without.

thereyet

<<Most new doctors are in in for the money.>>

BS.

<<...and when someone calls and asks for a wall to be poured, guess what, he doesn't ask if they have insurance. He bids the job and if he gets it he goes out and pours the wall and hopes he gets paid for it.>>

And when someone bids $0.00? Does he still pour? And when they bid $xxxx.xx and he pours, does he run the risk that a third party might still reject the bill? And does he have to pay extra staff, just to navigate the myriad of different third party payers, only to get a fraction of what the "bid" price was?

thereyet

Why do they become doctors then? I will bet that if this bill passes and we have a national health care plan similar to Canada you will see a drastic drop in students going into the medical field.

Again, I am not bashing all doctors, but if doctors were like the doctors in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. If they worked with their patients on payment plans, instead of 'payment due at time of treatment' which is posted in every window of every doctor's office I've been in, then I don't think we would need government intervention.

Now I do know that there are some doctors who have tried to do this, but because they are not 'affliated' with a big health system they have been denied hospital rights so if you go to these doctors with anything major they can not treat you and have to refer you to a 'specialist'. Whose fault is that, I don't know. Big Medicines fault I guess, but who started Big Medicine if it wasn't the doctors?

And when someone bids $0.00? Does he still pour?

He is the one doing the bidding not the customer.

And when they bid $xxxx.xx and he pours, does he run the risk that a third party might still reject the bill?

Yes. The bank where the customer has their construction loan.

And does he have to pay extra staff, just to navigate the myriad of different third party payers, only to get a fraction of what the "bid" price was?

Yes, he has had to pay lawyers to try to get money from people who don't pay to try to get either a fraction of the bill and sometimes he gets nothing at all, even though he performed the work and the basement was poured and a house is sitting on his wall.

Did you know that those signs, generally referring to "co-pays" only began popping up after the insurance companies began rejecting claims from Drs who had NOT collected the co-payments.

When the co-payment first became en vogue by the insurance companies, with the notion that the insured would reduce premiums, many Drs were not collecting these payments because they weren't accustomed to handling money in their offices.

thereyet

<<Yes, he has had to pay lawyers to try to get money from people who don't pay to try to get either a fraction of the bill and sometimes he gets nothing at all, even though he performed the work and the basement was poured and a house is sitting on his wall.>>

And does this happen to him every day?

thereyet

No, I didn't know that. I have never had a problem with a doctor taking cash or a check. All my doctors were accustomed to handling money in their offices.

When I was young my mom was a nurse in a office of two family doctors. This was in the 60s and I visited the office frequently and one of the ladies in the 'front office' was the bookeeper who took money from patients and sometimes I would even get to help her count the money.

And does this happen to him every day?

No, it doesn't, but he doesn't pour 20 to 30 walls in a day. As a matter of fact he doesn't pour many walls at all with our economy in MI right now. And the ones he does pour he may or may not get paid for in this economy.

<<Most new doctors are in in for the money.>>

Cg, any evidence to support this wild assertion? Or just your experience 40 years ago with the ladies in the 'front office' and your gut feeling? How do you know the motivation of "most new doctors"?

What part of "can't afford to stay in business" do you not understand, or do you just choose to ignore what some of us actually write vs. what you expect to see?

How do you know doctors do not take payment plans? Have you asked? *Every* physician I know does. *Every* physician I know treats many people without regard for their ability to pay, except when there practices are full and they can't take anyone, paying or not. The obvious exception is plastic and cosmetic surgery.

I guess it is OK for a contractor to be in his or her trade "for the money" but doctors can't ask for a $10 co-pay up front because that means "they are in it for the money." Unreal.

And by the way in our area the union trade workers have better insurance than anyone, including the health care workers who take care of them.

On the subject of the good old days of the 50s and 60s, I wonder if anyone really wants the reduced life span along with the lower costs and simpler approach.

Heart disease and cancer are the two leading causes of death in the US last I checked. Cardiac imaging cameras and radiation therapy facilties (which diagnose heart disease and treat cancer, respectively) cost from tens to hundreds of thousands, far more than the stethescope and Xrays cost back in the good old days.

America can't have it both ways--with state of the art care, and the decades it has added to our life spans, it costs. With 50s-60s medical care, we can stop worrying about retirement funding, because no one will need it.

What has happened in health care is that with few exceptions, businesses and individuals are paying huge insurance costs (I pay about $25k a year plus employer input as well); health care providers are providing services for lower and lower reimbursement (the $20 someone else cited above for a cardiology visit is right on target), and insurance CEOs are raking in millions and billions. If Congress has the guts to address this travesty, I am all for it.

let’s remember a few of Obama's past statements, actions or LACK thereof, TY:

Back in January Obama asked democrats in congress to dump contraceptives pay from the stimulus, much as appeasing the GOP wasn’t a political need.

Back in April, during SOTU (or some other bestest speech) Obama declared that unlike what he promised during the campaign,

Ir maybe you don't recall when he said that FOCA wasn’t his priority and abortion is not a freedom issue but a moral one

.....
Placemaker is spot on! It's the only way to reduce costs and ensure that everyone has access to appropriate care. Anthing else is status quo and not a "beginning" but more of the same.

Those who can afford their insurance, no matter how much the insurance industry decides to raise them, can keep their insurance, just as it is ... those who will qualify for subsisidies or find it necessary to use them, can keep the same insurance EXCEPT for women's reproductive services, even if they scale this back to match the Hyde Amendment!

BTW, it also eliminates SCHIP and all children will be transfered to Medicaid.

And I love the logic that because docs incomes are cut, they just order more tests - but yet the insurance co's are the gatekeepers and will NOT approve tests that do not fit their protocols or finely defined treatment policies - that's what that "pre-approval" is for. Or maybe folks aren't aware how many hours of a practioner's time is spent arguing with insurance companies to approve procedures. And anyone who is in an HMO is certainly aware of the requirement to see your primary doc with a co-pay before seeing a specialist and must have "approval." That does not more than clog the primary care's office getting "referrals" and cost the patient more time and money!

BTW, just antedotal, but when I switched to an HMO (BC/BS) because I simply could not afford the PPO anymore, it took me 8 or 9 calls before I finally found a doc who would accept me - and that was with arm twisting and calling in a favor - and when I needed PT (instead of surgery) the closest PT who accepted my top-rated HMO was 43 miles away. The PT's here will see you for the co-pay only and not bother with the insurance since it pays pennies.

And I don't begrudge my docs one penny of what they earn - they work hard for it! All they have to sell is their time and money but we all probably do know a few who gouge their patients IF they are private pay - much like the complaints you hear about dentists - which is not considered health care, go figure! Especially since dental disease contributes signifigantly not only to quality of life by disease as well. Doctors don't make widgets! And they do agree to "payment plans" and some even barter their services (shhhh!) and some are even beginning to do house calls!

time and KNOWLEDGE ... oppps!

Just a thought ...

how many of those "pro-lifer" who voted for the Amendment do you suppose took donations from ANY insurance company that covers abortion? Wow! Do you suppose that they'd accept money from those who would make a profit from covering abortion services - as most private insurances do? Or who might have received donations from those companies that produce birth control pills or RU486 or the morning after pill.

I guess if they were so principled, they wouldn't take a penny from the profiteers of "killing babies."

First, it seems like those are your words today BP, so I will just trust that they are, for some reason (God only knows why).

It is MY opinion that the right of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and whether or not to use birth control (the best method of avoiding unwanted pregnancy for those who are sexually active) should not be a part of this debate. Unfortunately these privacy issues involve health care, so it is difficult to exclude them from the debate. And there ARE Congress Members on BOTH sides who would not let this moment pass without drawing these privacy issues INTO the debate.

These privacy issues of a woman's right to choose and to avail themselves of the medical services of family planning/reproductive health, have the potential to bleed over into all aspects of health care, which is being realized, right now, on the floors of congress, and to derail the efforts that are currently underway.

If you would rather see any meaningful reform, which can be built upon in the future, go the way of Hillary Clinton's efforts of the '90s, you are going about it the right way.

You do realize there are those on the other side of the issues that are as equally passionate if not more so, as yourself?

The President is trying not to stir those passions. I support him in those efforts. It is a fine needle he is trying to thread.

If you like playing with pitbulls, don't be surprised when you get mauled.

thereyet

thereyet

Given the explosive nature of abortion, I agree with you thereyet. There has to be a compromise and this is one thing conservatives can't give up. I am fine with no government coverage for abortion. It may force people to use better birth control methods or buy private insurance.

Exactly nanabee, does BP think they were going to let what is in the Hyde amendment go by the way side in this current legislation? Was she/he wanting to use health care reform to advance the pro-choice cause?

Hmmmm

thereyet

"Again, I am not bashing all teachers, but if teachers were like the teachers in the 50s,"

Sorry, wrong post.

Actaully I much prefer the efforts of Ms. Clinton in this era - before she was shut out of the debate. It's about allowing EVERY woman the right - not just "health care" for some who can afford to pay cash! The right to chose to terminate a pregnancy should not be determined simply whether the woman can pay for the termination so she is forced to continue the pregnancy and give birth - especially to an unwanted child. You do realize that most abortions are preformed on married women, don't you?

Yea, he's trying not to stir the passions so that he can vote "present." He has no core, no basic beliefs or at least he won't take a public stand on ANYTHING unless it serves him. It certainly sounds like he is trying not to "stir" passions by declaring that the right is an ethical or moral issue - and the the woman who seeks an abortion is just "feeling a bit blue." (you know, like they do periodically!)

And "are just, as always, the expendable canaries in the coal mine. Their rights are toast, which means so are everyone else’s .... Rights are for all. When only some people have them, they’re just privileges. And privileges can be taken away"

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/you-have-no-rights/

What are you talking about? Of course I realize that there are many on the other side of the issue and the Catholic Church was present in the House for the debate. After all, I've been fighting for EQUALITY for years ... not for some, but for ALL - not just for the ones who can buy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9rC0MaBJc

The problem is that the Obamacrats don't even recognize when they've been mauled by the pit bulls! Maybe by 2010 they will. Denying appropriate and affordable women's reproductive health care only increases the NEED for abortion.

The fact that birth control might decrease the rate of abortion seems to be a concept that some just can't grasp. Also, from what I read in the paper this morning, AP article, the Senate is not so ready to pass something, especially the public option parts...so as far as I can tell, at this point, the beat goes on.

Maybe more Senators are in the pockets of the insurance lobbyists than I imagined. Very sad. It should be that congress can't get their insurance perks and freebies until they pass comprehensive health care for all Americans. They'd come up with something like yesterday.

Which brings up the point, if government sponsored health care and health care reform is so bad then why do they allow it only for themselves.

It may force people to use better birth control methods or buy private insurance.

making my head explode!

No, I predicted that the abortion issue would derail ALL health care reform and so far, it has by denying the majority of the population access to reproductive health care as any insurer who receives gov't money will not be able to cover the basic care. If people could afford to buy it, privately, without subsidies, they would but they CAN'T. And no health insurer is going to turn down gov't subsidies - especially since they are going to receive millions, if not billions, in seed money to set up the exachange - to design their own competition!

Was she/he wanting to use health care reform to advance the pro-choice cause?

WTF?

Abortion is at the heart of the "argument" because some people believe the fetus is a person with legal rights - rights greater than that of the mother. There is absolutely NOTHING that can and does stop those who believe that to make people who believe that living their lives and making their choices accordingly because we are granted the Constitutional right to control our own bodies - or were! Now they have decided that THEY control their own bodies and the bodies of others who do NOT believe as they do!

If protecting the right for all women to control their own lives, their own bodies and to make private personal reproductive choices - no matter what those choices may bee - then, I am guilty - and damn proud of it!

The DNC PLATFORM, written by Donna Brazile and the Obamacrats:

"We oppose the current Administration’s consistent attempts to undermine a woman’s ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care, including birth control. We will end health insurance discrimination against contraception and provide compassionate care to rape victims. We will never put ideology above women’s health."

Where are his assurances that mandated coverage for basic women’s healthcare will be ADDED to any final bill?

Of course, they weren't going to change the Hyde Amendment ... but they didn't have to construct legislation that is far more reaching and effective at destroying woman's choice (and reproductive care) than any rightwing Republican legislation could!

I think they also forget that we are the ones paying for their "gold plated" insurance plans and we also have to pay for our, in many cases, NOT so great plans. Hmmm, why is that?

"The right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

PS - Being healthy is a prerequisite to the Pursuit of Happiness...

<<Big Medicines fault I guess, but who started Big Medicine if it wasn't the doctors?>>

I have to STRONGLY disagree with this. I don't believe many docs start the grueling process of years of med school followed by residency training which by all accounts is close to impossibly hard. No it's not the docs that started big medicine, it was the insurance companies who figured out pretty quick they could make a huge profit and not even provide a service.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110818453.html?sid=ST2009110818479

Wow, all these posts and no discussion of the bill at all.

Here's some:

AARP backed the bill from start to finish. For their efforts:

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Remember the promise that if you like your coverage, you can keep it?

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

Remember Obama's talk of choice driving his priorities on health care?

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html

People should pause a moment, reflect on what they are actually getting before applauding so loudly.

You are not posting the bill, you are posting the interpretions of each section by someone who is probably opposed to the bill.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/ and scroll down to "Let Us Carry the Baton" because sure as hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, Congress is NOT going to carry it for us!

<G>

Keep up the fight and stop parading around looking like you just landed on an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner over your head! Preening and posturing is not pretty no matter who does it.

Nanabee,

I can't tell you how disappointing it is to see a woman who describes herself as a "liberal" write something like this:

"I am fine with no government coverage for abortion. It may force people to use better birth control methods or buy private insurance."

What are you going to recommend to the disabled women on MediCal or Medicare who are raped? Are you personally going to pay for their abortions, or should they just have to endure nine months of misery and then...what? They can't buy private insurance because they have very little money.

Why are you agreeing that it's just fine to take away the right of ALL women to control what happens to their bodies? Even with careful use of contraceptives, failure can and does occur and women get pregnant.

It's a sad day in this country when any "liberal" woman will give up the right of all women to choose in the name of "compromise".

He is posting the interpretations of each section by Betsy McCaughey, one of the most notorious liars in the history of American politics.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/

Hi TY,

>The President is trying not to stir those passions. I support him in those efforts. It is a fine needle he is trying to thread.<

Mr Obama occupies his office with 250 members of the House and 59 members of the Senate on his side.

Somehow, I cannot visualize, T Roosevelt, W. Wilson, FDR, H. Truman, JFK, LBJ, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton feeling it necessary to walk fine lines and thread needles under those circumstances.

Elections are supposed to have consequences. I am still waiting.

The House bill is not so much a healthcare/insurance bill as it is an employment program for bookkeepers, accountants, auditors, lawyers and sundry other government employees.

It continues to have the same discriminatory coverage we have today: Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for low income, VA for veterans, company or union sponsored for some, insurance exchange for others, public plans for still others. There are subsidies for individuals, subsidies for employers.

It continues to have the same discriminatory taxation: no income taxes on the value of a company paid plan and individual plans paid with after tax dollars.

Here is a web summary of a summary that was printed in the Worcester Telegram. The source is the New York Times and the printed version is 1/2 page wide and 3/4 page long.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

The House Health Care Plan

http://www.telegram.com/article/20091108/NEWS/911080388/1116

The bottom line: "Will all Americans get the same level of benefits/treatment?"

Barbara on Nov 9, 09 at 11:48am

Hear! Hear!

bdj: You didn't post the bill, either. You posted a biased interpretation of the bill.

ira: Honestly, I wish you'd stop posting opinion pieces as fact -- as with your AP story about where the bill's going in the Senate. Time and time again, we've seen that no one knows what's going to happen, and the opinion of one AP writer isn't worth reading, much less sourcing.

Thanks for the link, JS.

"Somehow, I cannot visualize, T Roosevelt, W. Wilson, FDR, H. Truman, JFK, LBJ, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton feeling it necessary to walk fine lines and thread needles under those circumstances."

FDR, JFK, and LBJ had bigger majorities than the present one, and yet they somehow did not manage to enact universal health care legislation.

<<This bill will provide affordable insurance for all Americans and guarantee coverage to almost every American.>>

Really?

From an article (not opinion piece) in today's WSJ:

"At the lowest income level, the subsidy would keep a family of four earning just over $29,000 a year from paying more than 1.5% of their income on insurance premiums. It reaches as far up as a family of four earning about $88,000 a year, so they would pay no more than 12% of their income toward insurance."

$10,560 for a family of four! Is that affordable? I know of families today that don't currently have insurance because of premiums in that price range. What has changed?

Betsy McCaughey is batsh!t crazy. Have you ever seen her debating? Jon Stewart did a good job with her.

thereyet

And right now we have friends who are paying $23.000. plus, both have lost their jobs and their only income is unemployment. When that runs out, what then? And it will run out in about 3 months.

ira: "Barbara on Nov 9, 09 at 11:48am"

Just an FYI and TOTALLY off topic - that doesn't work anymore. Since the changes a few day ago, times display in your own time zone. I had to search to find what you were talking about since your 11:48 is my 8:48 . . . . . .

10,500 for a family of four...a bargain. I pay 13,000 for a "family" of two.

thereyet

<Betsy McCaughey is batsh!t crazy>

And that makes it a good bill how?

jahoulih

<Betsy McCaughey, one of the most notorious liars in the history of American politics.>

Still with the liar scenario? I would have thought the d's would come up with something better after the recent election.

nanabee,

Yes, I posted analysis by someone who, I assume, opposed the bill. Let's see something from the bill that counters her assertions - that would be fair.

Did anyone, who supported the bill, analyze the bill? Or is that considered in poor taste?

Don't you know, all those unwanted children are going to loving families, along with a puppy.

Exactly cre, I guess some think it is better to pay MORE then 12%. And do pay attention to the preface "no more then" which means it certainly could be "less then" 12%.

But what do you expect from the WSJ, which is biased against health care reform of ant sort. And if I am wrong, please post where they have been supportive of real health care reform. And I am not talking about buying insurance across state lines, which is just another way for the current private ins. Corps to avoid State regulation.

thereyet

Can someone please explain to me why there's a public option and medicare?
I can't imagine why two agencies would be needed. Perhaps I'm missing the obvious.

Somehow, this all looks like IRS data to me - way more convoluted than necessary. Trying to decide who's edible for what seems like a fiscal nightmare.
Too many hands in the pot.

Well, I'm glad that is a bargain to some of you but it doesn't help the people I know. I do understand that it could be less than 12% but how likely is that when both the government and insurance companies are involved? I'd guess most will just opt out and pay the 2.5% penalty and then purchase insurance when needed. I'm far from being against health care reform, but I think this bill is a mess. In some people's twisted & small minds that makes me biased against reform.

Interesting link JS - thanks.

wtm: Since you didn't provide a link to the article, I can only note that the words "pay no more than" do not mean the same as "pay" and the two are not interchangeable.

thereyet,

Whether WSJ supported it or not isn't the issue. Whether their analysis fairly represents the bill is. If their analysis is wrong, where is it wrong?

My personal analysis? My health insurance will cost more and I won't be able to keep my plan. Even if I was allowed to keep my plan, I would pay more for the mandates. This bill hits my pocket on both fronts.

Will I have better care for the money? Not likely.

Will people get insurance or pay the fine? If the fine is less than the cost of insurance, the rational choice (with no preexisting conditions) is to forego insurance until you have significant costs that need to be paid for.

I may actually go from being insured to being uninsured under this bill.

While I am pleased there is some movement on health care reform, I am not at all pleased with the elimination of abortion coverage. This is not a good thing.

bdjt,

I doubt you would have time to buy insurance in the narrow window between being in an auto accident and being admitted to a hospital.

"Still with the liar scenario?"

As long as you're still with the liars.

bardo,

Do you mean the government would allow me to go bankrupt because of my lack of insurance? Surely you jest?

You may be right. But I did go without insurance for a year after Washington State outlawed all major medical plans because they also outlawed preexisting conditions.

They had to undo their 1993 law because it not only allowed AIDS patients to come into the state to get their expensive meds paid for but also eliminated the need to have insurance before you get sick.

"Do you mean the government would allow me to go bankrupt because of my lack of insurance? Surely you jest?"

Why not, it happens now even if you have insurance.

Barbara,

Yes, but isn't that why we need reform?

J999_9 I found a link if you are interested. I was reading a hard copy earlier. If the analysis provided is incorrect I'd welcome another source and would appreciate a link.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yc9e7pg

I agree that those words are not interchangeable, but like I said earlier I suspect the worst when it comes to government and health insurance companies. It also tells me that those pushing this bill have no idea of the true cost.

“I think anymore, if someone wants to be the "rich" doctor, they will become a plastic surgeon or a dermatologist.”

Reproductive Endocrinologists (fertility specialists) are the new plastic surgeons. Since companies are free to deny this optional coverage why should any optional reproductive procedures be covered?

Here's the link to what Federal employees get: the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Note that Obama as well as all the Congress critters, etc. etc. - in fact, all Federal critters - all get covered under this plan. Abortion is not a controversial topic under this program. In fact, I don't see it listed, so must assume that it is allowed - dependent on which plan is chosen.

http://www.opm.gov/INSURE/HEALTH/

Also please note the broad choice of private plans that Federal employees have.

In addition, notice that the Federal government pays for about 2/3 of the cost of these plans to a Federal employee.

My question is: why is not the Federal program which is offered to all Federal employees expanded upon and made to extend to everyone in this country? If someone can't afford to pay, then the Federal Government can pick up the entire tab for their premiums.

If you don't know how this latter might work, then look at Section 8 housing assistance by the Federal Government.

Trying to reinvent the wheel doesn't always work.

Oh, as an aside, I love the irony of reading this thread! Love it that it's OK to discriminate against women and be anti-abortion when it's Obama and the Democrats who are sponsoring the legislation!

ET,

Standards in politics are so high, they're double.

>>My question is: why is not the Federal program which is offered to all Federal employees expanded upon and made to extend to everyone in this country?<<

There seems to be an assumption that the federal-employee plan is the best one out there.

First of all, there is no one "plan" for federal employees. There are several plans offered by several different companies. As an example, the common BC/BS plan costs employees about $400/month and has minimal dental and eye-care coverage.

If we offered the "federal plan" to everyone, would that mean every family would pay the $1200/month total cost? Or would the gov't pick up the two-thirds that's normally covered as an employee benefit? How do we pay for that?

Thereyet, would you care to comment on my 11:58 post?

I'd welcome any comments from anybody on the question I posed:

The bottom line: "Will all Americans get the same level of benefits/treatment?"

bdjtbenson - "ET, Standards in politics are so high, they're double."

Well said!

jsmith: no, they will not.

From the article you cited:

"The public plan would have to offer different levels of benefits, covering between 70 to 95 percent of health care expenses."

Some specifics from the bill:
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

oops-left this off

For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

It's so awesome when people post something without attribution, and without reading the thread to see whether it's already been posted.

js, of course there will always be differences in coverage levels.

Amongst other things in this Bill, the objective is to extend at least minimum levels of health care for as many people as possible. Those who can afford more, will get more for their money.

Do you find something in the bill that specifically limits what you and your money can buy?

Even in countries where there is Nationalized health care, those with more can get more.

thereyet

<<It's so awesome when people post something without attribution, and without reading the thread to see whether it's already been posted.>>

Hahaha, Betsy's drivel sure does make the rounds, don't it? How many more times do you think they can squeeze her "analysis" out?

thereyet

Italybound, here is THE text of the bill.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text

thereyet

Love it when people fling THE TEXT of the House bill in other's faces.

"Here's all 2000 pages of gobbetygook legalese. What's the matter with you? Can't read!"

I remember when we would agonize over a 30-40 page contract and read and re-read the contract for weeks to make sure that we had said everything accurately.

Of course, all those Congress critters are so much more intelligent than we were and can speed read through all 2000 pages without any agony at all - except over abortion (which covers what percentage of US citizens? 1%? 2%)

Not to mention those who support the Democrats and Obama - these are the true speed readers of all 2000 pages! Especially those without any legal training! LOL!

Thereyet-which point that Betsy made about the text of the bill do you dispute?

thereyet,

Is there any other country where the BASIC healthcare plan falls into as many categories? Where the method of payment determines the tax consequences?

"Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for low income, VA for veterans, company or union sponsored for some, insurance exchange for others, public plans for still others. There are subsidies for individuals, subsidies for employers."

"no income taxes on the value of a company paid plan and individual plans paid with after tax dollars." (Should read work based instead of company to include union and public employee plans.)

For those who wish to waste more of their lives on Betsy McCaughey's WSJ op-ed:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911070006

Who wants to fuss with Betsy McCaughey when one can get an endless gigglefest from the language of the House bill itself?

"Section 303: A basic plan shall offer the essential benefits package required under title II for a qualified health benefits plan with an actuarial value of 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package."

or

" Section 1312: ...(2) SHARED SAVINGS AMOUNTS-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), qualifying independence at home medical practices are eligible to receive an incentive payment under this section if aggregate expenditures for a year for applicable beneficiaries are less than the target spending level for qualifying independence at home medical practices for such year. An incentive payment for such year shall be equal to a portion (as determined by the Secretary) of the amount by which total payments for applicable beneficiaries under parts A and B for such year are estimated to be less than 5 percent less than the target spending level for such year, as determined by the Secretary."

Just as a matter of info, the bullet points above cite examples of having a physician assistant or nurse practitioner for hospice care (the horrors!) under reform. That is actually already frequently the case. At least in our area generally the home visits during hospice care are from a nurse, not a physician. And private practice primary care providers are already using nurse practitioners where appropriate, and often they can practice independently and bill the same as the physician fees.

Since Democrats were so willing to give up women's reproductive health care in order to get a bill passed, with all the clammering against the public option, as weak as it is, from Democrats lead by Joe Lieberman, will that be the next to go? After all, the large majority of Democrats are pro-choice female and voted 56% for Obama,

Or as David Shuster says:

... the thing that Harry Reid has to say to his caucus, he may have to say "look, we may have to follow the House in order to get the centrists on board. We may have to allow this provision that strips federal funding from abortion." That may be the bitter pill that Democrats have to take in order to get the overall bill through. It's part of the whole horse trading that Harry Reid is doing with the centrists.

He is saying, ok look, we know that you don't like the public option, but if we give you, for example, new restrictions on abortions, will you then, at least, follow what the House did and allow a straight up or down vote?"


Restricting women's fundamental rights is nothing more than a horse tradimg exercise and if it makes it a little bit harder or more expensive for women to get appropriate health care, so be it. After all, women pay more for health care than men do now so why shouldn't that continue if she has to buy a little extra rider in the event that she finds herself pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.

The whole point is that it's really NOT about pro-choice or pro-abortion. In fact, if you listened to the "debate," woman after woman spoke strongly against this amendment. It's hard enough for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy without her having to anticipate that she would need to buy a "rider" to cover the possibility!

Tell me again why women are supposed to vote for Democrats if they will not even defend their rights to basic health care. Does any of the Democrats think that because they did this that the irrational Republicans will vote for them? Or do they know, and use to their advantage, that Democrats have no where else to go so they can do whatever they wish and smuggly walk away. How many members of the Democratic party belong to the "Progressive Caucus?" 109? Where are they?

Maybe it's time that notice be given that we will no longer tolerate our donated dollars be given to candidates who do not hear our voices. "Don't ask; Don't give" can be the cry! (h/t Americablog). It's time that donated dollars are NOT used to support and elect Blue Dogs who better represent the Republican party and its devaluing women. You can join with the LGBT community until the Democrats begin to start acting like Democrats and acting like they actually WON an election. No matter how bad the republican party is, it does NOT excuse Democrats from doing what they are doing.

<<Thereyet-which point that Betsy made about the text of the bill do you dispute?>>

IB, you seem to have a problem with cost control measures, like Betsy. Are you one of those who like to spend as much health care dollars as possible, because you think you are entitled because you have reached some magical age, to hell with those who haven't yet?

Oh, in my years of practice and through the debates of the last couple of years I have come across such attitudes frequently, and see the right wing opposers of reform stoking such fears. God forbid, anyone follow a PCPs recommendations for needed care.

<<Is there any other country where the BASIC healthcare plan falls into as many categories? Where the method of payment determines the tax consequences?>>

No, because there isn't another Nation on Earth with such a convoluted system to begin with.

Don't worry, I get it. Many of you are either afraid of, or are benefiting from the fear of ANY kind of reform that would provide health care for millions more then are getting it today.

Some are also hoping that reform fails as a means of regaining political power that was lost. Of course it is my opinion, they do that so they can finish off the "great job" that George W Bush was doing of destroying whatever is left of this country. Excuse me for hoping you are not successful in this endeavor.

Yes annw, PAs and NPs are already helping decompress the workload of overextended Primary Care Physicians and Specialists today. Not that some of these worry warts would have even noticed.

et, did you respond to my post?

thereyet

NPs do,as PCPs, help decompress the load. BUT AAP and AMA have both worked long and hard to decrease the powers of NPs. Perhaps, now it will no longer be so "necessary" to do so.

Please also remember home health nurses do a tremendous amount of the work which would otherwise go "undone" in terms of maintaining folks and their "health care". These positions are, in fact, being cut left and right as budgets dictate something "has to give".


As I said previously, I am pleased there is some health care reform. I feel there has been a grievous error made in "trading off" abortion in order to get this passed.I do not think birth control options necessarily eliminate the need for abortion. I wish it were so. I do feel we are on a slippery slope here. Perhaps birth control will be the next
"option" to be eliminated from the program.Many health plans, while paying for Viagra, has limitations on what birth control options will be paid for.

I will continue to vote Democrat. I do write in candidates from time to time. Barbara Lee continues to be my "go to" write in candidate. I do feel cynical when it comes to LGBT rights and the Obama administration as I also do regarding the reproductive health care of women. Time will tell.

Altho not about "reproductive rights per se," I am curious about the thoughts of those who object to the undocumented being included in the health care reform - altho in the House version they are not excluded from buying insurance IF they can afford it but the undocumented are denied some services in both the Senate and the House versions and none can qualify for subsidies or apply for the "public option"/exchange if it survives the Senate.

How do the anti-choicers who believe that life begins at conception, justify the denial of prenatal care and care for the delivery of an American citizen? After all, even tho the parents were undocumented, the child automatically becomes a citizen. Or should the cut-off be where the child was conceived? And what is more important to the life of the fetus than that the mother receives appropriate health care in order to ensure the baby's survival so that it doesn't suffer from life-long disabilities and disease which are far more costly than appropriate pre-natal care.

And who winds up paying when they are forced to use the ER as their primary care anyway? Wouldn't it be cheaper to provide a low cost basic policy that would pick up the costs? But more importantly, isn't the infant mortality rate already higher than most industrialized countries - to say nothing of the life of the mother being at risk delivering after no prenatal care at all.

Just thinking and am curious ...

Pam, there are those in Congress, including in the Democratic Party who are determined to inject the Abortion Rights issue into ANY health care reform effort. Apparently more then those who support women's rights to choose. Sure there are some Republicans who are "pro-choice", but they will not buck their Party like the Anti-abortion Dems have shown a penchant to do.

Is it your opinion that NO health care reform get passed if the amendment to ban federal funds being used for abortion stands?

Some above who have formerly called themselves Democrats seem to think that the President and Speaker/Majority leader in the House and Senate should be able to force those who are opposed to abortion to tow the Party line or they are complicit in the erosion of abortion rights.

I disagree with that notion. The Democratic Party is not a pure Party ideologically, as the Republican Party appears to be.

thereyet

TY~you know me better than that. As I said, I am pleased there is any health care reform. I simply do not support how it has come to be without concern.

Toe the line? Tow the line?

thereyet

Well that makes two of us.

thereyet

Well here is the quote I was hoping to hear....basically, keep abortion out of the bill.

"You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

Barack Obama

When that Bill comes before Congress, that is the appropriate time to debate Tax Payer funding of abortion.

Not now.

thereyet

There are many liberal democratic Senators that are saying they will vote against the bill if abortion is not included, then there are enough moderate D Senators that are stating they will vote against the bill if it is included. 2 R Senators are pro-abortion but don't want to include in the health care bill.

This should be very interesting. If the Pres pulls it off, more power to him, but I have a feeling this fight is far from a done deal....

Wow, that is a shocking revelation AAFF! You are quite bright to have figured that out.

Now, are you ready to start dancing on the roof of your hummer in celebration of the Presidents coming "failure"?

where exactly did I say that?

please entertain me...

LOL

ty, you should by now understand where I stand regarding health care. I am convinced that taking away a level of health care from 51% of the population is not a good thing, and if this bill passes with this in it, you will see the Democratic Party fragment before your eyes. Democrats used to have principles, that was what made them different from Republicans, but it seems that any of them can be dumped to ensure that Obama "succeeds".

But then, I don't have any problem with Federal dollars being used to fund abortions for women who can't afford them.

Sounds like the majority of female senators will be a force to be reckoned with. If they stand together on the idiotic abortion BS they should be able to take the new idiocy back out and simply leave it status quot.

Despite many saying not to worry about this, I fear this issue simply re opens opportunities to push abortion back into the dark ages.
Small issue to many but a possible big deal in the long run.
It makes me ill to think about how many opportunists there are in the senate/house.

Because cybor, if you have the money you can get an abortion any time you want? Like I mentioned my friend above, she went to Japan. They had money, no problem So again, the most helpless and weakest in our society get slapped down. It's such BS, I can't hardly deal with it.

I see a necessity for abortion, but am certainly NOT a fan. Geez, the fact that anyone pro-choice would feel they have to explain that is nuts to begin with. The thing that gets me most, is those that want to make abortion illegal, also don't want the government spending money for women's conraception. The world is totally upside down I think.

<<But then, I don't have any problem with Federal dollars being used to fund abortions for women who can't afford them.>>

Neither do I. Too bad you and I don't get to vote on it. Really.

thereyet

My question:

<<Is there any other country where the BASIC healthcare plan falls into as many categories? Where the method of payment determines the tax consequences?>>

thereyet answers:

"No, because there isn't another Nation on Earth with such a convoluted system to begin with."

Is that acceptable? Wasn't there to be change? Where is the courage?

Perhaps, there yet, you should search the web for "Swiss healthcare system". The Swiss redid their system betweem 1993 and 1996 and provided universal coverage. Prior to that their system was much like the US. It is not the cheapest system in the world but one that receives numerous accolades.
========================================================
The House bill is not so much a healthcare/insurance bill as it is an employment program for bookkeepers, accountants, auditors, lawyers and sundry other government employees.

Here's proof.

" Section 1312: ...(2) SHARED SAVINGS AMOUNTS-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), qualifying independence at home medical practices are eligible to receive an incentive payment under this section if aggregate expenditures for a year for applicable beneficiaries are less than the target spending level for qualifying independence at home medical practices for such year. An incentive payment for such year shall be equal to a portion (as determined by the Secretary) of the amount by which total payments for applicable beneficiaries under parts A and B for such year are estimated to be less than 5 percent less than the target spending level for such year, as determined by the Secretary."

JSmith...did you REALLY just compare the complexity of a Nation of 300,000,000, to that of a Nation of 7.5 million?

btw, don't you think there was equally complex language in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 or any Act of Congress for that matter? Were you so very concerned about understanding every paragraph of that Act? Is it just OK with you when it is the Conservative side of the aisle that throws up intricate legal language? Did you EVER hear a Liberal/Progressive get so petty as to copy chapter and verse and rant about the labyrinthine nature of legislative linguistics?

No?

thereyet

This is funny......

<<According to their basic findings, the total number of words in the House Health Reform Bill are 363,086. That includes the words found in titles, tables of contents and the like. The number of "words affecting in H.R. 3962 impacting substantive law" total out to be 234,812.

To be sure, that's a long bill! The 2007 Energy Bill had only 157,835 words, and the 2010 Defense Authorization Act is a trim 119,960 words. But as Computational Legal Studies points out, the total word count of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix is 257,000 words. Granted, it's a more exciting read, but the task of reading that book is something that even small children have proven themselves capable of mastering.

Maybe if we just renamed the bill Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Pre-Existing Conditions, everyone could just get on with it, and stop bitching about how hard legislating is.>>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/house-health-care-bill-ac_n_350810.html

Children read more words then this Bill for entertainment. LOL

thereyet

<<The House bill is not so much a healthcare/insurance bill as it is an employment program for bookkeepers, accountants, auditors, lawyers and sundry other government employees.>>

Were you under the impression that Drs didn't already employ bookkeepers, accountants, and lawyers? Or the Government didn't already employ auditors, and other sundry clerical workers?

thereyet

I am absolutely floored by the brilliance of this argument over the length of the House bill. How absolutely brilliant!

Let's just count the number of words and not take into account their meaning at all, at all.

Absolutely brilliant! - Not!

Now I have an even lower opinion of Huffingtonpost - didn't know it could go lower. LOL!

bp: "How do the anti-choicers who believe that life begins at conception, justify the denial of prenatal care and care for the delivery of an American citizen?"

Now, that's a clever point. Something to mull over, ya think?

Reading most of these replies makes me realize even more so why this bill is getting so convoluted.
Those of you who keep repeating the same mantra over and over are easy enough to represent. One does, however, tend to tune a person out if they keep repeating.

Those who feel the constant need to one up or be snarky only convolute the needs of all.
Just a reflection of the media and our representatives.
More talk than rational thinking.

This is a bad bill and I doubt it will pass. Sad that they could not come up with a simple, less expensive bill that did not threaten those who are happy with thier current plans, and which covered more uninsured folks.

The things you learn here, like how the Harry Potter books having more pages than the health care bill is relevant. Wow. The graf about the "home medical practices" is dense legal-speak; another shock to realize that the bill was written by lawyers for lawyers and their minions.

<Too bad you and I don't get to vote on it. Really.>

We have every opportunity to vote on it ... altho "abortion" is NOT what was voted on - the RIGHT to CHOSE was. We voted when we cast our votes for candidates for the WH, for the House and for the Senate. We have a Representative Democracy and IF those we elect don't represent our NEEDS and our WISHES, then we should not vote for them. PERIOD. We don't kick a whole class of people to the curb - an entire gender in this case, especially when they are the majority and 56% of them voted for the current POTUS as he used the Roe card to threaten them - if electing him the RIGHT to CHOSE would be protected.

His on-one-hand-but-yet-on-the-other approach is failing. There can be no compromise - either you are FOR the Right of women to have reproductive health care (that includes terminations) or against it for ALL women. No one is forcing any woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term nor is anyone forcing anyone to abort - that is what the Right to Chose is about, a personal private MEDICAL decision that each woman can and does control her own body.

WTHeck does "I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices” mean? WORM - it means he is NOT going to take a stand. He's still dancing the "bipartisansh*&" both-sides dance but the problem is both sides have a majority of old rich white men calling the shots. Has he no principles, no core, at all? I would respect him more, even if he supported the Amendement, if he just said so. At least maybe someone would finally get what he tiptoes around for years and voted "present" for for years!

The White House on Monday signaled it would keep its distance in the increasingly vocal debate over whether health insurance reform should include language related to abortion.

When asked whether the president supported Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) amendment to prohibit the public insurance plan from covering abortion services, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question — multiple times.

“Well, ask me that right before Christmas and the end of the New Year,” Gibbs said during today’s press briefing, noting the president still expected to sign a healthcare bill before the year’s end.

The press secretary later clarified, “We will work on this and continue to seek consensus and common ground.”

I have asked multiple times throughout the election cycle and yet have not received an answer. How do you compromise on that which there is NO compromise? A woman's right to basic health care?

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funding abortions, the President said “there are strong feelings on both sides” about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, “and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”

WTF? He was all about HOPE and CHANGE! He wanted to change the status quo! And since the Amendment is change of the status quo, even more restricting than the Hyde Amendemnt, that is change just not the change that we imagined, of course! So now we compromise, and "settle" for the Hyde Amendment, the status quo - and look what a wonderful job he did while he sits back, or rushes off to his newest PR stunt, and looks for someone else to blame!

Wow! I can hardly wait until the young women of today return to the time when I was a young woman who would have been forced to pay CASH for an abortion in the back alley or some hidden office somewhere by an unknown, and possibly untrained staff as tho she were a criminal or be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Nothing like putting women's lives at risk - all in the name of "change!" That's the "common ground"?????

Women's health care and women's uteruses and accompanying organs has become nothing but chattle and a token in a horse-trade. And you'll need more than "change" - cold hard green backs and lots of 'em - to exercise your Constitutionally protected guaranteed RIGHTS! No different than before women fought and gained those rights not just for themselves but for generations in the future!

As Hillary said in Berlin, "some walls remain." Yea! she sure is right about that but who woulda thunk that it would have been the Democratic party that built them right here in America!

OH! good G_d!

the author himself was incredulous how easy it was:

“It’s more than what we thought we would get.”

I guess in light of the fact that the same amendment was defeated in July when the bill was in Committee makes it even more historic!

Wow! look what happens happens to "progressives" when being "historic" becomes more important than being principled. And everything with BO is "historic."

After all, it's all about feelings not about policy or even justice per BO's statement! Nothing new, nothing different - that was the same hook that was used in the campaign.

I wonder what those "feelings" will be when the Senate starts with the knife work ... and the blood-letting begins!

<<The things you learn here, like how the Harry Potter books having more pages than the health care bill is relevant. Wow.>>

Someone had to put things in terms you would understand.

I see your reading comprehension still needs some work. It was more WORDS, not PAGES. LOL

thereyet

<<We have every opportunity to vote on it ... altho "abortion" is NOT what was voted on - the RIGHT to CHOSE was. We voted when we cast our votes for candidates for the WH, for the House and for the Senate. We have a Representative Democracy and IF those we elect don't represent our NEEDS and our WISHES, then we should not vote for them. PERIOD.>>

Well, no, you didn't get to vote on IT, you got to vote on THEM. Big difference.

Good job in regurgitating your 8th grade civics class. Did you get to sit in the Gallery too, on your 8th grade class trip?

My Representative has probably the most liberal voting record in Congress...Barbara Lee. I am quit proud of her, and will vote for her as many times as she runs.

How 'bout you?

My Senators don't do too bad either.

My President is with me as well.

There isn't much more I could do at the ballot box then I already have.

thereyet

Here is why Dennis Kucinich did not vote for this bill. I couldn't agree with him more.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091108_kucinich_why_i_voted_no/

Barbara: thanks for posting the article on Dennis Kucinich.

From one of the comments:
"hell, it makes being a woman a pre-existing condition"

LOL!

Dennis has it right and I could not be MORE disappointed in the president. Our papers editorial this morning was less than enthusiastic about this bill.

I had high hopes when the president was elected. I'm on the right side of center, but when it comes to health care, I find I'm quite left of center. Now I find that all the president was doing was flapping his gums. He had no plan, he had no concensus amongst his peer in the Senate, and as far as the health care issue goes, he's a big blow hard.

I do realize that he never supported single payer, so he didn't waiver on that, but he's just turned into mush on just about every other issue connected with health care, health insurance, what ever anyone wants to call it now. Incredibly disappointing.

I like this paragraph from Kucinich''s statement:

"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."

Does this bill address this in any way at all? As far as I know it does not.

TY,

Does it really make you feel better, rather than having a discussion about opposing views, to mock and ridicule with snide remarks anyone who may actually think differently than you? We didn't even have an 8th grade class trip and I don't think that I'll stick to the 4th-grade level arguments! Someday I'll tell you all about my experiences in DC and it sure wasn't in the galley watching - but I wouldn't want to bore you and your little bubble world where Obama is the bestest bubble-maker ever!

Meanwhile I'm glad YOUR President is with YOU ... after all, I thought the President was president of ALL the people - not just some! I learned that somewhere too. I also can recognize when the Demoractic party becomes the same as Eisenhower's GOP - but you wouldn't know about that!

Meanwhile Stupak Doesn't Care If Women Die - or maybe he and his ilk are just too damn stupid to understand what the hell they are doing.

And I hope that if the Amendment stands, that every insurance policy that is written by an employer who receives SUBSIDIES for it - tax credits - cancels benefits that the majority of policies now cover for women's reproductive health, that someone will get it! You see the Hyde Amendement doesn't prohibit abortion for ALL women - just for POOR women who can't pay cash or can't afford insurance who have to rely upon subsidies for their health care. But now, maybe that can change since we all subsidize anyone who has an employer-provided insurance policy.

But it doesn't really matter because no matter how far the left drifts to the right, how republican they become, people still hate Republicans more. And it's a shame they are counting on that rather than actually making changes that benefit all people without discrimination by gender, colour, religion, who they chose to marry (or if they even can), age, education or income levels! You know that ol' Democratic cry for economic and social justice that has been silenced when so called "liberal" women can stand up and say "at least we got change and someone has to sacrifice for it" and roll the rest of the nation under the bus.

someone said, "Wasn't there to be change? Where is the courage?" And the answer is there is NONE because it is all about the privledged staying in office - not serving the people. And so many do NOT hold him and his minions accountable - just like the last 8 years!

Yes, he is YOURS ... or are you his? Bought and sold ... and sure glad that we didn't put that nasty ol' Sara into the WH (well, the Naval Observatory) because she wanted to restrict women’s right to choose! We might have actually gotten a health care bill that enriched the insurers and limited women's health choices - and without a "public option" too ... but we couldn't discuss that nasty ol' single payer system!

Yea, he's got 99 problems and *ch ain't one of ... but then that's all wimmmen folk do is get moody and bitch! bitch! bitch! And shed fake tears, don't forget. But there's no misogyny as the Kool-Aid blogger boyz now lecture US about rights - they may get to wimmen's rights after they deal with the LGBT rights tho!

Who woulda thunk the most regressive women’s rights legislation in decades would arise during a Democratic, filibuster-proof majority in both Houses of Congress while a Democrat sits in the White House? Well, that is change!

You really don't get it, do you? ALL women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when even a wanted pregnancy goes wrong - when the fetus dies en utero. The ONLY exemption is for the life of the mother - NOT her health nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities. If you worked in a health-related profession, as you claim, then you should KNOW exactly what that means to millions of women!

Excellent Barbara,

I respect Kucinich, unashamed of his beliefs and unwilling to cloak them behind political speech.

I tend to disagree with his take on many issues though. Here I agree with his assessment of the problem, the dramatic rise in administrative costs in US health care.

I disagree with the reason for the problems; IMO it was the push to managed care that precipitated the administrative explosion and that was driven by government decisions. Since I have a different concept of where the problem initiates, it's not surprising that I would point to a completely different solution.

BP, ...and you aren't "snarky"? Uhh huhhh.

You obviously are a one trick pony. You only read into others comments what you want to see. That's fine. Your prerogative. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

thereyet

It aint over til it's over. I hope those ranting on and on on fodors about the anti-choice part of the House bill are contacting those Democrats who pushed for this as well as their Senators and telling them that a woman's right to choose is a human right. Here is one place to start:

https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4013

You have nothing else to add to the conversation, TY, so you revert to throwing sand in the sandbox? No, I'm still waiting for my promised pony. You obviously have yours. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! Or maybe you are among those who believe all women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant - whether she wants to be there or not!

bjd,

I too believe it was the HMO's and "Managed care" (when all they were managing was profits) that gave rise to the crisis in care when they turned medical decisions over to bean counters with no medical training but then, we'll never know what might have been IF ...

I certainly agree with his position that we can come up with millions, no, billions, to send people off to war to kill in other countries and we cannot find enough to take care of the sickest, poorest and most vunerable in our society.

But then, during the election cycle, he was ignored and even mocked ... too bad some didn't at least listen ...

beachplum - "someone said, "Wasn't there to be change? Where is the courage?" And the answer is there is NONE because it is all about the privledged staying in office - not serving the people. And so many do NOT hold him and his minions accountable - just like the last 8 years!

The first rule of politics - get elected
The second rule of politics - get re-elected
The third rule of politics - there are no other rules

It's all about power, certainly not what is best for us or our country. This whole health care reform, IMO. has nothing to do with healthcare. I believe that it has everything to do with controlling us.

But, 52% of the voters believed in hope and change. Unfortunately no one was aware of how the change would go. I believe that our health insurance system needs to be fixed, but the yahoos in DC are trying to reinvent the system to benefit themselves not us. If it takes almost 2,000 pages to "explain" something, perhaps they are bamboozling us. They are hardly ever held accountable an they know it. Look at ho many have made (supposedly) public service a lucrative career.

To F/U on another of your posts - some people can only feel superior if they demean others. It is unfortunate and certainly does not contribute to the exchange of ideas.

Orcas~thank you. My messages have been sent. I encourage others to do the same.

Hey, Orcas, what I thought was happening was different folks expressing opposing or differing views - not ranting ... until the sand started to fly! I do hope and agree that everyone should be flooding the halls of Congress with emails, faxes, snail mail and filling voice mails with their concerns and reactions - and that includes congratulatory messages for those who did the "right" thing and voted against this! Yes! the House did it and they deserve the wrath ... and now we have to make it clear to the Senate that it will NOT be used as a bone or chip in the game to keep a piss poor public option alive in the Senate.

parison:

It has all to do with protecting themselves! How quickly folks have forgotten that house on C Street (across the street from the Library of Congress) where Republicans cheated on their wives and held their daily prayer rituals - that is where Stupak lives! It wasn't so long ago that those occupants were a joke - I guess all that has changed since Ensign moved out!

Orcas, here's your RANT:

There is no f'ing "common ground" between people who believe in women's right to autonomy over their own bodies and people who believe that women's bodies are property of the government, or their doctors, or their husbands, or anyone else who gets a vote on whether they have to be pregnant even if they don't want to be. Either you stand on the side of women's equality and independence or you don't.

h/t Shakesville.

And our our mendacious President runs from a taking a stand - while declaring House bill with the Stupak Amendment "isn't an abortion bill."

WORM: It's not a bill that supports abortion (because that would be just terrible!), but the fact is that it is an anti-choice bill! Now 'splain to me how an anti-choice bill is NOT an anti-abortion bill again?

<<You have nothing else to add to the conversation, TY, so you revert to throwing sand in the sandbox? No, I'm still waiting for my promised pony. You obviously have yours. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! Or maybe you are among those who believe all women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant - whether she wants to be there or not!>>

Really? You actually do only see what you want to see through your veil of hatred.

You don't read my posts, because if you had you wouldn't have posted the garbage quoted above.

That is OK though, I hope you feel better now. It is good to blow off a little steam, even if it is widely misdirected.

Me? I reserve my rage or elation for the day the Bill is actually signed into law.

thereyet

hmmmmm ... I'd rather save my joy and elation for the day a bill is signed that does what was promised - appropriate and affordable health care for ALL ... but guess that's the difference between you and others and me. I don't think with a majority in Congress, in both the House and Senate, and a "Democrat" in the WH, that we should settle for a republican apporved agenda nor run away principles. Cowards do that rather than stand and fight!

But, we'll have to wait and see the blood-letting in the Senate, unless they cave too figuring that Reid is profoundly anti-choice also.

Besides, my daddy always told me never to get in a p*SSing contest with a skunk ... and right now you are just that with an aura of projection or is that just scratching sand like an animal does before it defecates? My hatred? and that's you best passive aggressive answer to the questions I raise? Tell me how an anti-choice bill is NOT an anti-abortion bill? Answer my other questions? I eagerly anticipate your dealing with them and the issue rather than personal attacks.

Anyone who proclaims himself to be a "liberal," as I believe you do, should be advocating equality and autonomy for women especially when it comes to reproductive decisions and health. But then maybe I am wrong and that you don't consider yourself a liberal. I know the POTUS has said he is NOT so I can understand his distancing himself from that principle nor was he ever a Democrat until it became expedient for him to run for national office on the Democratic ticket.

Do you, TY, hate our Constitution and the rights that are contained therein?

Speaking of "bill", they brought Bill Clinton up to the Capital today. We'll see what's up with THAT? They are looking for anything, just anything at all to show how "progressive" they all are.

Thanks, Orcas.
One of our reps. Patrick Kennedy (RI) said that he will not look into any changes regarding the abortion issue. Perhaps it was my email that made him decide to bow out - I'd say LOL but it's not that funny.

<<I don't think with a majority in Congress, in both the House and Senate, and a "Democrat" in the WH, that we should settle for a republican apporved agenda nor run away principles. Cowards do that rather than stand and fight!>>

So now you are calling me coward? First I am a "woman hater", now a coward, and a skunk, and a projectionist and an animal ready to shit and you complain about "personal attacks"?

Hmmmmmm.

I owe you nothing, much less any answers for your spun full of hatred questions.

The people that actually *know* me on this forum, and there are a few, know what I stand for and what I am like, none of which are reflected in your characterizations of me.

How about you? Is there anyone on this forum who can actually vouch for you?

No, I don't "hate our constitution and the rights contained therein".

This is a Health Care Bill that has an anti-abortion amendment attached to it...it is NOT an Anti-Abortion Bill.

I don't suspect the Stupak-Pitts amendment will be on a final bill that the President will sign.

You keep talking about "women's reproductive health care" not being covered in the bill. What pray tell are you suggesting will not be covered, other then abortion?

btw, I advocate, contribute, and vote consistent with a very liberal point of view. I am represented in Washington by two White Women as MY Senators, an African American Woman as MY representative and An African American Man as MY President...and I am quite proud of them all and the work they do.

That African American President also is half white. So, a white man is being represented by a half-white man.

BTW, thereyet, why don't you call out that cabal of yours and tell them to support you and tell you how great you are?

You gave me a great laugh when earlier on this thread you made out that you were the victim of cyberstalking. I couldn't help it. I just had to ROF and LOL!

You, who cyberstalked me with your cabal and said some of the filthiest and nastiest things to me, along with your cyber "friends", - you who cyberstalked me for over a year, now you're claiming to be the victim! LMAF.

easytraveler,

that's what happens when one ONLY has a chance for 8 grade edukation...

ty,

wouldn't even know how to start or keep up with a good debate...

It's either her/his way or the highway....... (imagine that)

I am not trying to get in the middle of any contest here. And I will admit to not reading the bill, but I would like to voice my opinion and try to tie in my earlier posts. I don't have any websites or references to link to, so this is all my opinion based on life experiences.

Why can't the doctors, insurance companies and employers come up with a solution to this? If the patient is at the 'heart' of everyone concerned, which all sides say is true, why can't they figure this out?

In my opinion anytime the government gets involved in our personal lives things just don't turn out the way they say it will.

This goes back to my earlier posts..If doctors and hospitals would open their practices to people w/o insurance and offer a payment plan based on income then we could work this out.

If insurance companies had to insure everyone, take the good with the bad. They would have to take assigned risk like the auto insurance companies have to, which I think the ISO may be a government agency but it is state by state and only regulates certain things, then this wouldn't be a problem.

There are so many solutions that aren't being explored. I just don't like it when the government takes control of things that the private sector should be able to handle.

cybor - "Can someone please explain to me why there's a public option and medicare? I can't imagine why two agencies would be needed. Perhaps I'm missing the obvious."

The "obvious is that congress is involved and we are being scammed by a 2,000 page bill. The more layers, the more money (raise our taxes), the more power.

"Somehow, this all looks like IRS data to me - way more convoluted than necessary. Trying to decide who's edible for what seems like a fiscal nightmare. Too many hands in the pot."

We have a convoluted tax code created by congress. Why would anything else they create be more understandable? If we are confused, it is easier for them to take our money.

To get back on my soapbox - they don't care about our health - they care about taking as much of our money as possible in order to have power over us. The yahoos in DC don't care a bit about us - it is all about them. When they move their lips they lie.

To get back on my soapbox - they don't care about our health - they care about taking as much of our money as possible in order to have power over us. The yahoos in DC don't care a bit about us - it is all about them. When they move their lips they lie.

Exactly paris...why get the government involved and why are people so happy that they are getting involved.

thereyet on Nov 10, 09 at 1:09am

JSmith...did you REALLY just compare the complexity of a Nation of 300,000,000, to that of a Nation of 7.5 million?
========================================================

No, thereyet, what I said was Switzerland developed a healthcare system in 1993 and adopted it in 1996 and it was universal, not covering just 94 or 95 or 96 or 97 or 98 or 99, but universal. That means every Swiss citizen is covered. THE SWISS DID IT.

I said their system receives accolades from most who have examined it.

Is there some magic number of population that says "OK, America, look at us for some ideas". What is that magic number that would miraculously make some other nations ideas of value to consider in the US?======================================================
Aren't we looking forward? Aren't we looking to control costs? Wouldn't one of the ways to control costs be to simplify procedures? Why so many rules and exceptions and exemptions and credits and penalties on both employers and employees?

Why not a payroll tax paid by an employer? Isn't that the way Soc. Sec. and Medicare are funded? Add a tax on investment income and you've paid for basic healthcare.

I said basic which apparently has already been defined in the bill which the House passed. Want coverage for a private room, for example, then buy it in a separate policy as people in other countries do.

The Swiss system maintained private insurers but the insurance for the basic plan is non-profit. They can earn a profit on the supplemental policies. BTW, a few years after the Swiss adopted their system (by referendum) they had another referendum on whether they should have a public plan and they rejected it.

The Swiss insurers can't turn down anybody nor can they terminate coverage. The insurance is not tied to employment and the individual chooses his own insurance company and can stay with one company throughout her life.

I apologize in advance if I made an error but I'm sure there are many who will be happy to correct me.

<<Why not a payroll tax paid by an employer? Isn't that the way Soc. Sec. and Medicare are funded? Add a tax on investment income and you've paid for basic healthcare.>>

Why just the employer paying the tax, why not everyone who earns a wage pay a tax also?

I don't have a problem with higher taxes.

However, do you think a tax increase of this nature will not face the same opposition in Congress that this bill is facing?

<<The Swiss system maintained private insurers but the insurance for the basic plan is non-profit.>>

Private insurance companies are being maintained in the proposed scheme. For profits AND non-profits. The public option acting as just another non-profit in the Senate Finance committee version.

Do you really see no difference between 7.5 million and 300 million when it comes to Universal Coverage?

I am sure that it also helps that Switzerland doesn't go around starting wars, and maintaining a huge armed forces, putting a giant dent in their budget.

thereyet

<<There are so many solutions that aren't being explored. I just don't like it when the government takes control of things that the private sector should be able to handle.>>

Why do you think that is?

Is it possible that the Government has to get involved because the private sector has proven to be predatory? Why so many Medical Bankruptcies? Why does the cost of insurance coverage rise at a rate far higher then most others industries?

thereyet

700,000 Medical bankruptcies per year. Average 22% administrative overhead in the insurance industry. 16% GDP spent on health care. 47 million citizens not covered by insurance. >25,000 deaths per year due to lack of coverage. People on the political right deny that health care is a right but is rather a privilege.

Those are all problems not found in many other major industrialized Nations.

thereyet

TY - "Those are all problems not found in many other major industrialized Nations."

How many lawyers do they have and how many malpractice cases and how high are the cash awards?

jsmith - "Why not a payroll tax paid by an employer? Isn't that the way Soc. Sec. and Medicare are funded? Add a tax on investment income and you've paid for basic healthcare."

Employers pay payroll taxes and so do we. Raise the employer portion and the employees will probably get lower salaries.

>>How many lawyers do they have and how many malpractice cases and how high are the cash awards?<<
Smokescreen. We may indeed need malpractice reform, but that's hardly a chief reason for our problems with health coverage.

<<"Exactly paris...why get the government involved and why are people so happy that they are getting involved.">>

Do you really not know this or are you being factitious? Do you also feel the same about governmental interference with the FDA, VA, Medicare/aid, CDC, Health depts., Licensing medical personal, school nurses, public mental health facilities, etc.?
Imagine for a second if the gov. didn't regulate polio vaccinations.

If the private sector has been "predatory," why devise a system that supports its continuing being "predatory?" Why bring the predators to the table to design the "reform?" Who in their right mind thinks that those who caused the problem can now solve it? That's not CHANGE!

Just to take a very sharp right turn, does it ever occur to anyone that this is NOT designed to impliment socialized medicine but to destroy the socialized medicine that has been successful in the US - the systems that provide care to the elderly and the poor.

You see, the bill as it is is designed is NOT to provide health care to the most needy, and probably the ones who need it the most, (as those who can afford it, have it and for the rest it is a luxury). What is proposed is little different than when Michelle Obama tried a similiar scheme in Chicago that diverted poor people from "her" for-profit hospital to an alternate tier of care. And as the approved House bill mandates, those seeking care who have no insurance may well find themselves facing not only fines but jail time - U'm sure that will really encourage the poorest or the sickest to seek care, won't it? After all, there is a whole lot of folks out there who are living under bridges, in their cars, on the streets or on a friend's sofa who I am sure that their highest priority is filling out income tax forms (it's probably their first priority, right, since they have no job nor prospects of one anytime in the future?) to notify the IRS that they are carrying appropriate insurance!

Meanwhile even if they seek care (or are carried in half dead) they are billed at a rate three times higher than those who have "insurance" - Michelle Obama's hospital did this as a matter of record and I'll bet the nearest private hospital to you does to! And guess who pays the bill?

And, of course, each of them will actually be able to hire a lawyer for the "get out of jail" card for free, right? Or will they be appointed a court-appointed lawyer to defend against the fines and jail? If they live that is. And who pays for that? At least in jail they get the three hots and a cot and health care!

Oh! but they can apply for a "hardship" exemption and qualify for all sorts of programs - programs that do NOT exist in their "neighborhood" as if they really trust the system to help them - after all, they are already homeless or at such poverty levels that they simply can NOT afford insurance or the co-pays or the deductibles since they don't even have enough money for a meal, for a roof over their heads, much less "insurance!" So they are terrified to go to a hospital because they don't have insurance and can't pay a fine - since even the President doesn't rule out "jail time." They are terrified to fill out forms and supply information because they have fallen off the rolls of society - no one hears them, sees them - and they are afraid that they'll be asked to fill in the missing links - so that their children aren't taken away or worse. Jail time for being impoverished or chosing not to buy crap insurance!

If anyone had a clue how the "system" works ... everyone is all wrapped up in the employer tax and the middle class entitlement to health care as the middle class disappears and sinks into poverty - losing jobs, homes, health care! "Don't mess with MY health care" is the cry with absolutely NO guarantee that it will be there tomorrow or the next day! Ask all those who negotiated health care for life when they retired and their contracts have been ruled invalid about that! Or those who relied on their insurance only to find that when they needed it, it wasn't there - despite them spending thousands of dollars a year for coverage.

Meanwhile what has developed is a hellish maze of mandates, entitlements and penalties! Has anyone even tried to read the bill which is nothing more that 2000 pages of gibberish and legalize? It was promised that before a vote, a bill would be available but even if it were could ANYONE, other than those who composed it, even know what's in it?

Rather than adopting a universal plan that would cover ALL and actually cut COSTS, they've made a "better" mousetrap even more complex and disjointed than what we have now that serves the industry by giving them millions of new premiums every month! And rewards them for developing a system that streamlines BILLING! Premiums will be set by the insurers, for benefits they determine (after gov't approves them, of course) with co-pays and deductibles for CARE that they think you DESERVE - if you are deserving enough. And they decide which care you don't deserve and can't have unless you pay out of pocket in additon to not missing a premium payment! And, even better, they get to design their own compeitition using the same model that they use in their own industry and get paid billions in seed money for doing so!

But the Senate version just may, altho unlikely, contain a public option, that is neither public NOR optional, if that too isn't bartered away ... after all, it's been watered down to the point that is unrecognizable. Literally dumping millions more people into Medicaid is NOT reform! Neither is requiring people to spend half their income on insurance is not REFORM either ... ah! but they get subsidies! Has anyone here EVER tried to manage the "system" to even apply for any assistance/subsidies at all? Oh! it's easy; it's all on the "tax forms" ... Do you have a clue what is involved? Even choosing a Medicare gap plan is beyond comprehension of most people - much less negotiating the health care system and now a whole new layer is added?

so suppose in a few years, when the historic reform has untterly failed to do what was wanted and do what was intended, and it shots itself in the foot, the crys will be heard ... "you see, we told you so. Socialized medicine does NOT work" - because that's how the argument is framed! And what happens? The systems that service the poor and the elderly go down the tubes - after all, they are just a "drain" on our system, on our society! Socialized medicine doesn't work - except it does! We have re-entered the World of Ronald Reagan and the mendacity of the "Welfare Mom" and pointing fingers - and meanwhile a single payer system was not given one thought or a chance - but it's the system that works for every other industrialzed country where people pay 1/2 to 1/3 of what we do for health care and get better outcomes!

After all, if we look at our own Medicare, single payer works and works successfully to provide care and extend lives of seniors and the disabled. And that will go down the tubes along with all the "reform" while the multi-millionaires in Congress say, "We tried" and that's an end to any chance of any reform now or in the future! The "experiment" was a roaring failure! We're just too big, to diverse, have too many differences from anyone else so we cannot succeed! And the arugments that exist today, that existed 40 years ago, will continue to haunt while health care remains a luxury not a basic human right, nor a necessity!

Wow! how powerful it would have been to use the bully pulpit to actually promote affordable health care for all. How historic would that have been!

And, yes, the anti-choice amendemnt poisions the well - what next will be on the list of treatments that some group finds unacceptable! Meanwhile, I do wish that we all that same option, to opt out of programs and plans that are not in keeping with our basic values and beliefs and we could force our beliefs onto others so my tax dollars don't go to causes I don't support - like war, propping up religious groups, abstinance education, private schools for the lucky few - and on and on it goes including my taxes going for subsidies for the 27-year-old who still lives off mommy and daddy otherwise they too would be the ones who aren't getting health care and living under bridges on the margins of society. We couldn't have that! That's for "those" people!

Where is the economic and social JUSTICE? Them that got, gets ... the rest can die in the ER waiting room and we still pay for it - at the highest price! Better a woman die from a botched abortion or be forced to carry a dead or fatally damaged fetus to term at the risk of her own life, right? Because a bunch of guys in pretty robes got together with a bunch of old rich white guys in custom-taylored fancy suits and said it is so!

<<"We have a convoluted tax code created by congress. Why would anything else they create be more understandable? If we are confused, it is easier for them to take our money.">>

I disagree and do not think that this is a grand conspiracy to take our money away.
I do, however, believe that we have too many hands in this pot and not enough business and medical minded people making these decisions. Mix in politics and you've got a good concept that can go haywire.

The Dems. had this and are blowing it because they stupidly thought that they could get more pub. votes and keep everyone happy. They needed to stick with their original intentions and make a stand.
My hope is that they keep tweaking this thing til they get it right.

TY:

Stupak's amendment stated that the public option cannot provide abortion coverage, and that no insurer participating on the exchange can provide abortion coverage to anyone receiving subsidies.

Jim Cooper points out in the interview below, the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak's amendment. It's the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free.

And BO's right arms, McCaskill and Casey, are fighting to get it in the Senate bill. Obama's "nothimg stricter than Hyde Amendment-type limits" is now the bottom line.

I guess you don't remember when the Hyde Amendment limits were the Republican position and Democrats opposed the Hyde Amendment? Why did so many abandon Carter for Kennedy ... after all the tears at Ted Kennedy's death, Hyde is now his first offer, the starting point!

The rich will always be able to afford safe abortions. They can fly to another country just like in the pre-Roe days. It's the poor who are being sacrificed in the name of "history." Classism at its best - but then, that's what it always has been about!

opps!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_stupak_amendment_as_much_a.html

Cybor-Do you also feel the same about governmental interference with the FDA, VA, Medicare/aid, CDC, Health depts., Licensing medical personal, school nurses, public mental health facilities, etc.?

I think the ones you mentioned are government agencies so of course the government would be involved.

The point I am trying to make is why involve the government in private industry. I don't think that the government should have been involved with GM or bailing out the banks, and I don't think it should be invovled in the insurance industry.

I would like to see the AMA and the health insurance companies self regulate so that the government would not have to step in. They are the experts in the medical field..why can't they come up with something so everyone has access to health care. Why does the government have to do it?

It is my opinion that less government involvement, whenever possible, is better.

Cybor-- I am saying the same thing as your 8:27 post about too many hands in the pot, just not as well as you said it.

<<"The point I am trying to make is why involve the government in private industry.">>

Whether you want to admit it or not the buildings, the drugs, the vaccines, etc. etc. all came from private industry.

<<"I would like to see the AMA and the health insurance companies self regulate so that the government would not have to step in.">>

The insurance companies had the opportunity for years to do this and they've done a terrible job. Mixing profit with insurance companies is like asking a lawyer to look at your best interests for a minimal fee. Look the gov. says it's illegal to be a loan shark, why, because we need watch dogs. left to their own devices insurance companies are no different than any other company not regulated by the government.
Look what happened with the banks and CC companies when left to their own regulations.

As for the AMA, these are not business people. Sure they should have some imput but not have to carry the ball.

>>I would like to see the AMA and the health insurance companies self regulate so that the government would not have to step in.<<

I would like to see world peace. Anyone who thinks that self-regulation works needs to sit down and have a talk with Alan Greenspan, who said he was "certain" the financial industry wouldn't self-destruct if left to its own designs.

If you think the insurance industry is going to self-regulate with the goal of helping anyone but the insurance industty, I fear all communication with you must cease.

You are right, j999_9. Silly me, I know our politicians have our best interests at heart. They will do what is best for us. I'll stop communicating now.

beachplum: great post at 5:20am PST (your 8:20 EST).

It's really worthwhile for everyone to see if this bill really addresses what was one of the key tenets: helping those Americans who don't currently have health insurance/care to get some. It remains to be seen if this bill will really help or hurt the poor and the elderly (not to mention the kids whose parents can't afford health insurance as it exists now). The goal is not for the poor and the elderly to BUY health insurance, the goal is for them to be able to GET health care- something that's gotten lost in the entire shuffle.

You brought up an interesting point which has been nagging at me - who really wrote up this 2000 page bill?


cybor: I heard one commentator this morning opine that, with this bill, maybe in the end insurance premiums will go up instead of down. Scary thought.

<<
parisonmymind2 on Nov 11, 09 at 4:42am

TY - "Those are all problems not found in many other major industrialized Nations."

How many lawyers do they have and how many malpractice cases and how high are the cash awards?>>

Is this the default position of those on the right who oppose reform?

How much money, and what percentage of the overall expenditures on health care in this Nation do you think Malpractice amounts to?

Do you really begrudge the sufferers of malpractice who have been harmed or even killed by poor care, any sort of recompense for there pain?

thereyet

It is almost impossible to file a medical malpractice suit in California now because of caps on cash awards. Very few lawyers will even consider it. This has not resulted in lower health insurance premiums. This whole notion that malpractice suits are to blame for the high cost of medical care is not true, but it's very attractive to Republicans who don't seem to see any need for doctors to be held responsible for making mistakes that drastically affect the lives of their patients.

It's very attractive to Democrats who don't seem to see any need for teachers to be held responsible for actions that drastically affect the lives of their students.

Sorry, wrong subject but just as silly as the 12:48 pm and 12:08 pm posts.

jsmith, that you harbor some sort of resentment of teachers (public school in particular) and lawyers (and Democrats for that matter) has been made abundantly clear through many of the threads you have started on this forum. It is unclear however, what your point is to the above posts that attempt to place things in perspective regarding a hot button issue, that there are bigger fish to fry in the health care debate.

thereyet

bp, where did you get the idea that the University of Chicago Medical Center is Michelle Obama's "for-profit hospital?" It is not. It is a nonprofit inner city hospital that has had major financial problems, partly because it has had so many nonpaying patients. It has come under heavy criticism for trying to turf them out and is struggling to survive. Check out the er some day. It's not a bunch of rich folks, believe me you.

On the malpractice issue - its not the lawsuits and the settlements that markedly increase health care costs. Its all of the tests. repeat tests, and other procedures that are done by physicians for fear of lawsuits - the 'defensive' medicine costs do raise health care costs.

And actually, the costs of malpractice insurance do get passed onto the consumer in pricing of medical services and in contracts that are negotiated with providers by insurance companies.

As it stands now, I do believe that this is going to increase costs. I think the whole "if you have insurance, you won't lose it" is naive. Employers can quickly do the math and realize that the tax penalty for NOT offering health care benefits is a lot cheaper than the cost of offering health benefits. Employers will drop coverage.

And, to individuals, the tax penalty of NOT buying insurance might be cheaper than the cost of insurance. Especially for people who are not sick - so they will take the hit on the taxes - and then not buy insurance until they really are sick and need it. So much for risk mitigation.

I just don't get how the finances make sense to anyone. There is no accountability for the government to manage costs on the public option - so they will just pass the costs onto us via taxes. How is that better than premium increases?

I have great admiration for the teachers in the public schools of the 40s and 50s. Before they becamew enamored of the factory floor, assembly line approach to education.

thereyet on Nov 11, 09 at 1:13 am

"I don't have a problem with higher taxes.

However, do you think a tax increase of this nature will not face the same opposition in Congress that this bill is facing?"
=======================================================

I presume then, thereyet, you wouldn't object to paying taxes on your employer paid health insurance. Imagine how the budget picture in California would look if income taxes were paid on employer paid health insurance the same way taxes are paid on individually purchased health insurance.

The cost of health insurance paid by both the public and private sector employers would be included on the W2. If the actuarial cost of all employer paid benefits were also included maybe we could stop the farce that public employees are underpaid.

Did you read the bill? The House bill approved a tax of up to 8% of payroll on those employers who don't provide health insurance. Hasn't that set the precedent of a tax. If all employers pay a tax of 8% of payroll and discontinue the employer paid plans then EVERYBODY would be covered in the basic plan as defined by the government. You want more, you pay it.

Isn't that a horrible outcome? EVERYBODY with the same basic coverage from conception to death. What could be worse?

chicagolori: what a great post! thanks for presenting some of the issues so clearly.

I have just one disagreement, that of the cost of malpractice insurance. It can't always be passed on to the patients, especially by sole practitioners. I know of one sole practitioner who's seriously thinking of quitting because of the malpractice insurance burden.

I agree Easy - its not all. Sometimes when larger provider groups are contracting with insurance companies and want increased reimbursement, one of the reasons is their increased malpractice costs. I know there are numbers out there about how all these pieces eventually add up to the cost inflation. I just am too lazy to find them. But its all incremental - fraud, malpractice premiums, defensive medicine... many components.

While I fundamentally agree that everyone should have healthcare - no matter what system goes in place, if costs and improving the value of what we pay for healthcare is not included - its just shifting the problem from one area to the other. There is so much variation in care -and there has not been enough education or discussion about the value of the care - not just the cost and who pays for it.

A very simple example is the well published report from the NIH "To Err is Human". This is the report that spoke to the 100,000 deaths per year due to medical errors and compromises in patient safety - mostly due to simple errors or lapses. The whole point of this report was not to cast blame on individuals for errors but rather to point out that the delivery system of care needs rethinking. There are entire industries and coalitions dedicated to doing this now (a good thing) but this whole quality and value of health care issue is not going to be solved by this bill.

TY - "Do you really begrudge the sufferers of malpractice who have been harmed or even killed by poor care, any sort of recompense for there pain?"

I do not begrudge honest claims of malpractice. I do object to ambulance chasers and frivolous suits - there are many in this country. We have lots of trial lawyers and the only way they make money is to sue and convince juries to pay high awards.

I don't think I said that I was opposed to legitimate malpractice suits, but you can sue anyone for anything. That is what makes malpractice insurance so expensive and drives up doctors' costs.

I also know that trial lawyers contribute a lot to representatives and senators.

The malpractice thing is a huge dilemma for me personally for all the reasons you outlined Paris. I have been on both ends of the spectrum - I have seen patients harmed by poor care and also seen frivolous lawsuits filed against good physicians.

Often times, the cost of settling a lawsuit is less than the cost of fighting it in court. So, the malpractice company settles with the patient to avoid expensive litigation - even if the physician did not commit malpractice.

On the other hand, every bad outcome or death is not the fault of the provider. Some clearly are the fault of the provider - but sometimes, people are just very sick and all the care in the world won't help.

Its a conundrum... and its one example of why this health care reform is so difficult - its very complicated, its not black and white, and the stakes are so high.

chicagolori: Yes, agree wholeheartedly that the cost issues are not really being addressed. I've heard the wagging heads on TV say that cost will be the major consideration for the Senate and not abortion. We can only hope this will be so.

It's ironic that the US can toss around billions and trillions to bale out Wall Street and Main Street banks and more billions and billions on foreign wars, but when it comes to the health of its own citizens, all of a sudden there's a cost problem that is underanalyzed and maybe be the reason for not offering universal health care to all citizens.

On the medical errors, do you think that it might be due to the limited time that doctors have per patient? The administrators at one large HMO have thought that each patient deserves only 15/20 minutes of a doctor's time, thus packing each doctor's day with patients. This is a situation open for medical errors to occur.

Yes, this bill appears to be more concerned with the buying (and selling) of health insurance rather than dealing with health care itself, particularly the quality of care.

So far, it appears to be a rather poorly written bill.

Exactly! Its not about dealing with the delivery of good healthcare as you state. Access to care is indeed a huge gap that must get closed but its not the only thing that needs to get done - both morally and fiscally. Hell - you can have the best insurance in the world and still get the worst care possible.

On the medical errors - it was more about hospital errors and the lack of adequate processes to prevent them - and not so much about time spent. A good example (horrible but instructive) is the cases of "wrong side surgery." There were no processes in place to verify, check and double check that the correct limb was amputated. So - if one person made a mistake and prepped the right leg - the rest of the system proceeded along and did not double check. And since the patient is under anesthesia and can't speak up... you get the rest.

Another simple finding was the inability to read a physicians handwriting - so prescriptions were not filled or dispensed correctly. Electronic medical records is one way of addressing this. There are also language disparities not addressed. A classic example - a physician wrote a prescription for a medication to be taken "ONCE" a day. The patient did not speak english - they spoke spanish. ONCE in spanish is ELEVEN. The patient took the med 11 times per day...

I meant to add - so that it is not all horrific - as a result of that report from the NIH - many new practices are in place.

There are multiple checks and balances in place now for amputations. The limb gets labeled with magic marker the day before surgery, the patient verifies it if they are able - sometimes they even do the mark - and then there are several people who must all check and check and sign off. The surgeon being the last one to give the final ok.

So - progress is being made.

<<Hell - you can have the best insurance in the world and still get the worst care possible.>>

Actually there was a study done that showed more people died from too much care then those who died from no health care at all.

thereyet

Chicagolori: LOL! That's a really funny story about "ONCE". I never thought of it, but you're right!

Reminded me of the new car that came out and was called "NOVA" = "No VA" in Spanish.

<<There are multiple checks and balances in place now for amputations. The limb gets labeled with magic marker the day before surgery, the patient verifies it if they are able - sometimes they even do the mark - and then there are several people who must all check and check and sign off. The surgeon being the last one to give the final ok.

So - progress is being made.>>

Of course you understand why all the procedural requirements have come about?

thereyet

This may have been posted already, but I will post again...

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

As many as 100,000 per year die of nosocomial infections. Another 200,000 have died from preventable blood clots during their hospital stay.

For years there was outcry over the shortening of hospital stays. Seems now it is probably a good thing to get you home as soon as possible.

thereyet

<<A classic example - a physician wrote a prescription for a medication to be taken "ONCE" a day. The patient did not speak english - they spoke spanish. ONCE in spanish is ELEVEN. The patient took the med 11 times per day...>>

That is not funny, at all.

Hospitals are taking much greater care, when it comes to drugs an