[Jax]

I heard this guy, Lloyd Doggett, say on the news that the healthcare bill that has been proposed HAS to be passed. He has said he will vote for it against the wishes of his voters. I don't like the sound of that. I read a good bit of the bill, and honestly, I'm scared it will pass. I've seen how bad SSA and Medicare are firsthand. I can't imagine that this would be any better. Check out the video. I want to hear some thoughts about all of this.





And I can't type...the title should say The...not Thr...

This post has been edited by Jax: 06 August 2009 - 09:33 PM

[edlee]

I'm having problems with Utube on my browser, so couldn't watch whatever it was you are talking about.

If what you are having a problem with is a legislator voting his consience instead of poling his district each time,,, I gotta say, I'ld rather he do the first,, that's what he was elected for, wasn't it?

If what you are afraid of is the new legislation,, that's a different thing altogether.

I read both the Senate and the House bills back when they were first brought from committee, and were a hell of a lot shorter. Now that everybody and his brother has added a little something,, I no longer can tell what it is.

One more reason for giving the line item veto to the sitting president,,, whoever he might be. It would stop a lot of the garbage amendments from being tacked on to otherwise good bills,,, or getting mediocre bills passed because they also funded somebodies pet project.

I doubt that this is the place for an argument on the merits of a single payer system,, or the one they are proposing. For the first,, you have the perfect place to ask what people who have one have to say. For the second,,, I no longer have any real idea of what it is.

As for Medicare,, just got it,, so far, no problems...???
ed

[Slowlegs]

There was thread on this a while back. Seemed to end up like the religion one for a while - a big poo pie fight.

[Jax]

The first problem I have is that there is no accountability of these officials to their employers (the people who elect them). The second is what's in the new version of the 1,018 page bill. The third is that the president is behind it ALL. He wouldn't veto any of the things that would make him and his cronies more money anyway.

I've read a couple hundred pages of the new bill, and quite honestly, it's absolute insanity. The govt will (through the new "healthcare" bill) be given authority to deny any or all healthcare to most of us Americans here on the forum. I know there are plenty of issues now with our system, but I know that I don't want the govt taking over. Look at the mess they've made of everything else they've touched.

As for Medicare, I got it in July, and can't even find a primary care doctor that takes it. (I'm in AUSTIN, TX!! If they don't take it in the state capitol, where do they take it?) Emergency rooms generally take it, but patients get the bills months later anyway as medicare likes to reject claims.

I know how bad a job our govt has done with social security. With the 2 month wait to talk to somebody at the SSA (IF you can ever get through to anyone in the first place), can anyone imagine how long the waits are going to be for medical issues when the govt takes over?

Another issue I have is that the govt has been sending out bullies and goons to try to thwart peaceful protesters. In some cases, the govt goons have become physically abusive to peaceful protesters. (Remind anyone else of China? Iran maybe? Maybe not as violent, and I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's certainly concerning.)

Now, to answer any concern about representatives voting "conscience": If they really had consciences, this bill wouldn't even be up for discussion. After having read a good portion of it (more than most of the representatives, by the way), I'm inclined to say I don't see how anyone could vote for it. It's going to take taxpayer money, put it into a pot, and then the govt can withdraw what it wants, when it wants (Social Security anyone?) and then they can deny any or all healthcare to any individual they deem too disabled or too expensive or undeserving. Now does that sound odd to anyone else? I don't know about the rest of America, but it's quite fishy, and a lot scary, to me. As a 26 yr. old para, I can see how much more difficult it could become for me to even get to see a doctor. And where do they draw the line for who's worth saving and who to let die? Where do they draw the line for who gets to see doctors and who doesn't? I understand that there is a transition period in the bill, but it all seems like a mask for govt takeover to me. In the Declaration of Independence, there's a line I really find to be at odds with the "conscience" vote party line. "For imposing taxes on us without our consent..." Seems to me that the tax being raised for this new "healthcare" system would be against our consent if Mr. Doggett has his way about it.

I had a good history teacher who reminded us all that it was our job to make sure that our constitution was upheld and to question anyone who did otherwise. Now, I remember one of the parts of the Declaration of Independence said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Do we really want a govt (run by somebody who has no problem with killing babies after birth) to make the decisions of who lives and who dies? Isn't it against what this country was founded on? Isn't that wrong?

On to the "president": He voted "PRESENT" on a bill in the Illinois senate that was meant to help stop babies from being left to die or killed (AFTER the babies were born!!) simply because the mother decided she didn't want a child. Does that sound like somebody you want (even indirectly) running our healthcare? What would he say about us? Would the disabled be next on the list after babies and older people? Does that not make anyone else at least think this govt healthcare bill might be a bad idea after all? As I said in another thread, I'm all for it if done right, but this bill is very, very wrong. Also, I watched on ABC as Obama passed on the question as to whether or not he would put his family on the new healthcare plan or if he would stay with his special package as pres. Interesting how every rep I have seen asked about that has avoided the question altogether. Wonder why they aren't going to go with the new system if it's so great?

Another little tidbit for those who might question what I said about reading more of the new bill than most of the reps have: there are several reps who have admitted to not reading the entire bill. One even said he didn't have enough time or enough lawyers to read and have interpreted the whole bill. The same was said about the auto and bank bailouts bill. On it was attached a 300 page addendum (which nobody read but those who wrote it) less than 3 hrs prior to voting. In the addendum the pres got to give a whole crapload of taxpayer money to his campaign supporters. Google it. It's interesting what our govt has done recently. Isn't anyone else the least bit worried about this stuff? I sure as hell am!


Edited to add: Thanks for making me think ed. It's helping me to write to the idiots in political offices to tell them how I feel.

This post has been edited by Jax: 08 August 2009 - 03:06 PM

[edlee]

I, as a citizen of the US, appreciate that anyone cares about what our healthcare system will be in the future.

Unfortunately, I can't go along with you on most of your opinions.

First, I believe that we need to change the way healthcare is delivered. If we can't agree on that to begin with,, what's the point of going farther?

Second, I don't want ANYONE left out, when it comes to medical care. Simple, basic premise. another yes or no issue for me.

I'd like to see something based on Medicare/medicaid, VA benefits,,, for everyone,, then more coverage if you choose to pay for it yourself, or through your employer.

Ideally, I think I would like to see something like Canada or the UK has. I've spoken to many over the internet and have found the consensus to be that most appove of it,, and would not want to trade it for our system. Ask them,,,

Lastly, Trying to paint a picture of greed and corruption as the basis for the whole thing is,,, for me at least,, making the rest of your arguments less believable or credable. Stay out of the mud, state your own opinion,,not Fox's,, I think you have probably read more of the bill than any of the talking heads on either side of the debate.

For a while,, stop thinking from the point of view of one party. I think I can learn from individuals views,, but I have a hard time paying attention once I recognize a political "accent",, no matter which side of the issue it comes from.

ed

[Jax]

"I, as a citizen of the US, appreciate that anyone cares about what our healthcare system will be in the future.

Unfortunately, I can't go along with you on most of your opinions.

First, I believe that we need to change the way healthcare is delivered. If we can't agree on that to begin with,, what's the point of going farther?"

I agree that our healthcare system and delivery need work.


"Second, I don't want ANYONE left out, when it comes to medical care. Simple, basic premise. another yes or no issue for me."

Yes, I want everyone to be able to have healthcare. No, I don't think those that can work should be allowed to not at least try to work and still reap the benefits from those of us that do. Seems to me that's been going on too long anyway. Could that be part of our current problems?


"I'd like to see something based on Medicare/medicaid, VA benefits,,, for everyone,, then more coverage if you choose to pay for it yourself, or through your employer."

Why would you want to see something based on Govt plans like Medicare that are widely unaccepted by doctors already? That doesn't make any sense. "Let's take a program that isn't working and base our new program on it. That should work." VA benefits suck too. Well, on paper, they're great. But in application, they're worthless. I've got a couple family members who have to wait hellishly long just to see a cardio doc or an orthopedist. I've also got a friend who spent 2 yrs waiting to see the neurologist that told him the tumor on his optic nerve was inoperable. For that two yrs wait, the VA was responsible. They refused to get him in to see the neurologist, insisting he just had migraines as his primary care had said. Interestingly enough, their care falls short just like medicare/medicaid.


"Ideally, I think I would like to see something like Canada or the UK has. I've spoken to many over the internet and have found the consensus to be that most appove of it,, and would not want to trade it for our system. Ask them,,,"

I would love to hear from some more than the ones I have heard from in Canada and the UK. The UK seems to have unwrinkled most of it, but from what I've heard and read, New Zealand is the one at the forefront in my opinion.


"Lastly, Trying to paint a picture of greed and corruption as the basis for the whole thing is,,, for me at least,, making the rest of your arguments less believable or credable. Stay out of the mud, state your own opinion,,not Fox's,, I think you have probably read more of the bill than any of the talking heads on either side of the debate."

Greed and corruption are rampant, however that's not my sole basis for the argument against this particular bill. I don't watch fox. (I don't care for their misinformation.) I don't believe that the DNC or the RNC are either one worth a crap, and neither is fox, followed closely by CNN. The basis for my decision that this bill sucks comes from reading what I have of the bill. There are lots of things in it that effectively stop many people from being able to get the healthcare they need and deserve. Is that what you want? It is ridiculous to think that our representatives would pass a bill without reading it in whole, but it has been done, and will be done again and again until we stop it. It is particularly disturbing to think of them passing a bill they deem so important, when they have no real clue what it contains. Wouldn't you read something totally before passing it? It is also disturbing that the representatives we elected to work for us have decided that our voices no longer matter.


"For a while,, stop thinking from the point of view of one party. I think I can learn from individuals views,, but I have a hard time paying attention once I recognize a political "accent",, no matter which side of the issue it comes from."

Think I partially addressed this already. I think you are mistaking my reasoning as propaganda or party line. What you may have missed is that there is also talk of the republican version of a healthcare bill that has not been put up for consideration yet. I await it's release so I may read it as well, however, I am afraid I will likely be just as disappointed with it. I'm not politically "accented," I hate the whole political charade. Mind you, that's all it is. The longer they keep us divided, the longer they can keep us distracted while they rip us off. Remember how they went ahead with bailouts (once under Bush, and again under Obama) even when Americans said no? I do. Isn't that what our constitution was made for? Isn't it supposed to have laws that stop that stuff from happening?

And isn't it interesting that the representatives and fed govt officials (President included) won't be on this healthcare system? They've even put in a clause to ensure that they have the choice to stay with their "special" healthcare packages. Go figure.


Maybe you don't mind what they're doing to our healthcare in DC, but I do. At least enough to read through what I can of the healthcare bill. But like the good representative said, "I don't have enough time or enough lawyers to read the whole bill" and have the whole thing interpreted.

For those interested, and everyone in the US should be, I have provided the link to the PDF of the healthcare bill. Don't be fooled by the first of it, as it's very much the same as the first version, but the body is where it gets interesting.

Healthcare, the Govt's way.

This post has been edited by Jax: 08 August 2009 - 11:19 PM

[edlee]

It's unfortunate that you would put up a link to a site whose only purpose is to defeat this legislation.

I don't know if I support the bill, as it was last read,, tho I liked it as it came from committee. In the very first page of the bill is the description of what the bill is supposed to be and a synopsis of the way it's to be done. That isn't just for show,,, if the bill is passed with it in place,, anything within the bill that isn't compatable with that description will automaticly be subject to reversal or removal. These "Bills" are contracts, and are required to stand up as such.

There is so much confusion about what will happen under this legislation, that noone wants to take a chance. I'm not sure I want to, as my insurance is pretty good (medicare, by the way). As a matter of fact,, you say you have members of your family that have been ,, for lack of a better term,, mistreated by the VA system. I'll not doubt your word, but I hope I can get the same curtesy when I tell you that I have a brother, and a bit above thirty members of my vet's organization, withwhom I've spoken to about this very topic,, who adamantly praise the VA,, tho they unanimously agree it could be better, they all insist that the insurances they have had were no better and in some cases worse.

I think my view boils down to the analogy of a runaway wagon heading for a cliff,,, jumping off I may be injured,,, staying on WILL be worse. We need to change now,,, the tailoring can be done as we go along. If we don't start now,, we are only postponing the inevitable.

ed

[Texaswheelz]

I applaud you for taking the time to read parts of the bill, i haven't read any of it and don't have a lot of information on it. I do know that my wife is a business owner that pay's taxes and employee's others. She has no money for her own insurance much less those that work for her. I'm on medicare as the insurance that my work offer is no where is good as it is. So I hate the argument from people that "People should work and get their own insurance", it just isn't a viable option for a large portion of America, hence the majority of people that work and don't have insurance.

Also I see the "The govt will (through the new "healthcare" bill) be given authority to deny any or all healthcare to most of us Americans here on the forum" and I think are you really going to argue that? Private insurance companies have that same right, accept they are more interested in making money off of you then helping you. They are notorious for having policies to deny claims the first few times they are put through and make their customers really come after them for payment on procedures they need.

Austin must be low on Doc's because I am in Dallas and have lived in numerous other city's and have not had one problem finding a Dr. that accepts medicare. That makes no sense to me at all and just sounds made up. I would also assume that if doctor's had half a brain they would start accepting this new insurance by the Govt right away to bring in patients. But that you haven't been able to find one but have been looking for longer then a day is just amazing, I have the next day off, I'm betting I could call around Austin and find numerous doctors that accept it if you would like me to do that for you.

Again as i stated I live in Dallas, and I believe it is more populated the Austin, but correct me if I'm wrong. I've been down to speak with them at the SSA office on more then one occasion and have spoken with them on that day every time. I don't know where this 2 month wait came from. I've never waited more then that day. I have had them speak to me and then schedule another appointment, but that appointment has never been a wait of over 2 weeks.

A lot of your stuff I don't care to comment on as it is just stuff thrown out there to incite a strong reaction that you've probably read else where.

Do I think the healthcare plan being considered at this time to be the best it can be? No, Do I think that we need something to change with how insurance companies(talking about rampant greed and corruption) work in the US currently? Yes, very much so. Is this a start? Yes. Am I happy that some one is finally living up to their word and working on it after they are elected instead of just before they are elected? Yes. Do I think that once this is passed there won't be any changes to it to make it better? No, I believe changes will be made to it over time to make it better, but it's a start and we have to start somewhere.

This post has been edited by Texaswheelz: 09 August 2009 - 11:43 PM

[Jax]

"It's unfortunate that you would put up a link to a site whose only purpose is to defeat this legislation."

First of all, that link was to the bill itself as currently written. It's a PDF file. So how can you say it's to something with the purpose of defeating the legislation, when it's actually to the legislation itself? Another case of not reading something before making up your mind about what it says.

"I don't know if I support the bill, as it was last read,, tho I liked it as it came from committee. In the very first page of the bill is the description of what the bill is supposed to be and a synopsis of the way it's to be done. That isn't just for show,,, if the bill is passed with it in place,, anything within the bill that isn't compatable with that description will automaticly be subject to reversal or removal. These "Bills" are contracts, and are required to stand up as such."

How can you defend passing legislation when you haven't read through at least part of the body of it. The intro is great and pretty just like political campaigns. But along the same lines, the body of the work is generally much different. contrary to popular belief, the intro is for show. Face it, it's as far as most will read in the bill before deciding the bill is worth voting for. How much farther have you read? You think they didn't think of that when they wrote it? You say these bills are "contracts." Would you sign a contract without reading it? That's what is being done with this bill. It is being pushed through congress prior to them reading it. Take a look at what some representatives have said. Several have admitted to not reading it before deciding to support it. Does that make any sense to you?

"There is so much confusion about what will happen under this legislation, that noone wants to take a chance. I'm not sure I want to, as my insurance is pretty good (medicare, by the way). As a matter of fact,, you say you have members of your family that have been ,, for lack of a better term,, mistreated by the VA system. I'll not doubt your word, but I hope I can get the same curtesy when I tell you that I have a brother, and a bit above thirty members of my vet's organization, withwhom I've spoken to about this very topic,, who adamantly praise the VA,, tho they unanimously agree it could be better, they all insist that the insurances they have had were no better and in some cases worse."

I'm glad you've seen some of the good side of the VA. Maybe the area makes a difference with them. Where I'm from (and where those family members are) the closest VA hospital is over 100 miles away. Probably has a good bit to do with it. The friend who had the retarded primary could have been a total lack of luck, so maybe the VA isn't so much to blame as the distance and the one dumb doc. But how does this bill take care of that problem? You see, it's MUCH more difficult to try to cover everyone under one system than congress thinks. They think what works in a big city will be great for those in rural America too. If you think everyone should be covered, don't those people in that small town count? Also, do illegal immigrants who work for cash and pay no income or property taxes count? If so, you might want to take a look into the situation with the 'Medi-Cal' system in California. Doesn't it stand to reason that those illegals working for cash and not paying taxes are likely a big part of the problem already? If they're going to reap the benefits of the system, shouldn't they have to put into the system?

"I think my view boils down to the analogy of a runaway wagon heading for a cliff,,, jumping off I may be injured,,, staying on WILL be worse. We need to change now,,, the tailoring can be done as we go along. If we don't start now,, we are only postponing the inevitable."

We do need change. First, we need to stop rushing through voting on something before it's been completely read by all who are voting upon it! Second, if we have to be on the govt healthcare system, so should the govt. NO EXCEPTIONS, not even for the President himself. If it's not good enough for them, how can they say it's good enough for every American? Are they not Americans too? Did you hear Obama on an ABC interview bypass the question of whether or not he would put his family on the proposed program rather than their "special" package? Did you hear the representatives that did the same in other interviews? Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else here that the plan that's "good for America" isn't good enough for America's President or congresspeople? If you want to start with the runaway train analogy, here's a thought for you-the only thing that's really inevitable for everyone is death. Most of the rest of life is either random or chosen. So maybe we are just postponing the inevitable, but isn't that what healthcare really is? Isn't a good portion of it just postponing the inevitable death? Maybe that's a sick outlook to some, but if we're going to be totally objective and academic about it (for a second), that's pretty much the basis of a good chunk of healthcare. Many cancer treatments, most cardiac treatments and surgeries, nursing homes, hospice (sorry for stating the obvious one), etc. are all in that category. So I guess with the govt at the helm, maybe it couldn't get much worse than it is now. We might even save a crapload of our tax money on all those treatments and meds the govt can deny. Maybe the hospice market will boom for a while. My sister-in-law works for a hospice group, so she'd have even more job security. There's another problem with the claims of this bill and it's supporters. It is supposed to lower the price of healthcare for everyone. How can that be done really? If the money comes from taxes, and several million of the beneficiaries of this bill don't pay taxes, isn't that just going to make it much more expensive for those of us that do? Unless of course the govt plan includes severely limiting what care is covered, or it includes lowering the wages of medical professionals and restricting prices of medical goods. That's just economics. Think of the changes those things could easily bring. I know I hate having big pharma and the govt in bed together, but to have them become joined at the hip sounds like a scary move to me. Now I'm aware of the discussion between the President and pharma companies, and I think there's much more happening there than we might realize. Hope I'm wrong about that, but I guess we'll see.


"I applaud you for taking the time to read parts of the bill, i haven't read any of it and don't have a lot of information on it. I do know that my wife is a business owner that pay's taxes and employee's others. She has no money for her own insurance much less those that work for her. I'm on medicare as the insurance that my work offer is no where is good as it is. So I hate the argument from people that "People should work and get their own insurance", it just isn't a viable option for a large portion of America, hence the majority of people that work and don't have insurance."

If you haven't read it, you might want to take a look at it. It's only 1,018 pages currently. Shouldn't take more than a few weeks and 3 lawyers for you to get through it all and have it all translated. I made it through what I did of the bill thanks to insomnia. Had to have a bit of it explained to me by a friend who works for a lawyer. I know plenty about small businesses. My father owns a small auto parts store in my 1500person home town. I know how expensive insurance is (For them, when my brother and I were both at home, it was over $1,000/month. It went up just before I got off their insurance after my injury, and now with me off the insurance, it's still over $900/month.). My parents have Scott&White insurance. I know how crappy they are as a private insurer. But I also know that the govt will be fining businesses and individuals for not having insurance. And there will be an employment tax increase on businesses to help cover the cost of the new system. Have you taken a look at your wife's business tax records? How do you feel about her having to pay a higher employment tax?

I didn't say people should work and get their own, I said they should be willing to at least try to work (IF they are able), and have taxes withheld from their checks in order to qualify for govt healthcare under any system. I also didn't say the system now is good, not by a long shot. What I said is that there are three problems here. The bill itself doesn't make things any better, it just shifts the load from private sector to govt sector. The second is our reps not listening to their voters. the third is the reps not reading the bills they are trying to ram down our throats. Also, there's a clause that states the govt can automatically unenroll all those on a private insurance if the company does something the commission doesn't like (P.44) Doesn't that totally contradict the stated point of having the bill in the first place? If the govt kicks people off their health insurance, isn't that sort of forcing people to enroll in the govt plan? Shouldn't we have the right to choose? If women can kill babies and call it freedom of choice, why can't the American people choose their healthcare?

"Also I see the "The govt will (through the new "healthcare" bill) be given authority to deny any or all healthcare to most of us Americans here on the forum" and I think are you really going to argue that? Private insurance companies have that same right, accept they are more interested in making money off of you then helping you. They are notorious for having policies to deny claims the first few times they are put through and make their customers really come after them for payment on procedures they need."

I understand this. I was denied several things by Scott & White insurance, one of which was a wheelchair! Of course, it didn't help that the people who own the hospital also own the insurance company. What I'm trying to get across with this point is that it's no better than what we have now. How much more will get taken care of when a politician makes decisions about our healthcare? Isn't it just kind of shifting from one (private sector) corporate decision-maker to another (fed employee)? And haven't we already figured out that those corporates know nothing about what we really need? If they did, and were giving us what we need, we might not be having this discussion at all. How can govt officials who have never been on any of our insurance plans (including medicare) possibly know what we, the people, really need? This bill creates a "Commissioner" position, and gives that commissioner quite a bit of power to do what he/she so chooses when he/she so chooses. It says that the commissioner shall be knowledgeable, but knowledge is the only requirement really. There's no accountability of the commissioner to anybody. Isn't that kind of how we got into this mess in the first place? It's all right there in the bill, at that link I provided to the bill text.

"Austin must be low on Doc's because I am in Dallas and have lived in numerous other city's and have not had one problem finding a Dr. that accepts medicare. That makes no sense to me at all and just sounds made up. I would also assume that if doctor's had half a brain they would start accepting this new insurance by the Govt right away to bring in patients. But that you haven't been able to find one but have been looking for longer then a day is just amazing, I have the next day off, I'm betting I could call around Austin and find numerous doctors that accept it if you would like me to do that for you."

Primary docs here as well as specialists here have had tons of problems with getting medicare/medicaid to pay up. Yes, there are a few who still take medicare, but medicare has yet to pay up for my emergency visit due to a really nasty UTI. I have gotten a bill for the $618.00 for the visit, and another bill from the EMS for another hundred and something (for a 5 mile drive). The primary care my wife has used for a good while now (and whom I have started using) said she would try to get medicare to pay (she's friends with my mother-in-law), but that she has stacks of medicare claims that are still unpaid. That's just for this year, so she will likely totally stop accepting medicare as well. I'm sure you can find something in Dallas. I'm sure there are some here. I just haven't found one. If you do find one here that I can actually get into, let me know. Of course, if I get the bill because medicare won't pay, I hope you won't mind if I send it your way. Also, have you had any luck getting through to Medicare on the phone? If so, tell me how, because I've been on hold with them for quite some time when I've called, and haven't actually spoken to a person yet.

"Again as i stated I live in Dallas, and I believe it is more populated the Austin, but correct me if I'm wrong. I've been down to speak with them at the SSA office on more then one occasion and have spoken with them on that day every time. I don't know where this 2 month wait came from. I've never waited more then that day. I have had them speak to me and then schedule another appointment, but that appointment has never been a wait of over 2 weeks."

The problem with being in Austin is that it's the main office in TX. I've sat in the waiting area from open till a bit after noon (BM forced me to leave 2 different days), and didn't get in to see anyone. The lobby is usually packed. When I call the 800 number, I've been on hold for over 2 hours without getting to talk to a person. About 2 1/2 hrs into the call, their system hangs up on you if you're still on hold. We don't have a home phone line, so it's a bit expensive to do that on a cell phone more than a couple times a month. When I was first injured, the nearest SSA office was 35 miles away, in Brownwood. They have 2 ladies in the office most days, and a third some days. They cover Brown county, Mills county, Comanche County, San Saba county, and Coleman county. Try to get an appointment there. When you're on hold, the message played over and over tells you to go online for lots of stuff, but when you want to see most of it, you have to have a login and password that you're supposed to contact your local office to get. You see the circle dilemma?

"A lot of your stuff I don't care to comment on as it is just stuff thrown out there to incite a strong reaction that you've probably read else where."

Really? Depending on what you're talking about when you make this statement, you may be partly right. I do want people to react, but not out loud necessarily. I want the reaction to be thought. That's part of why I pose questions--to attempt to make people think of their own answers. I would like for somebody who wants to tell me how great this bill is to actually start reading the body of it before telling me how much better it will make healthcare. I would like to discuss this stuff with somebody who has at least as much of a clue as I do. Somebody who knows more about it would be GREAT. As for what I've read elsewhere, I've read a lot (again, including several parts of the healthcare bill). But what I've heard said (by representatives and the President) is much more pertinent than some MSN, yahoo buzz, or newspaper article.

"Do I think the healthcare plan being considered at this time to be the best it can be? No, Do I think that we need something to change with how insurance companies(talking about rampant greed and corruption) work in the US currently? Yes, very much so. Is this a start? Yes. Am I happy that some one is finally living up to their word and working on it after they are elected instead of just before they are elected? Yes. Do I think that once this is passed there won't be any changes to it to make it better? No, I believe changes will be made to it over time to make it better, but it's a start and we have to start somewhere."

Interesting. Why don't you read the bill, or at least some of it, and then make up your mind whether or not you like it? I think you would be much better off having at least a bit of a clue what it says before you decide whether or not to be for it. Also, how do you feel about our representatives voting for something they haven't read? Does that make much sense to you? If it does, then I see why you don't like what I'm posting. Do you really trust the govt that much? Do you really think making a decision based on something you haven't even started to read is a good idea? Isn't an informed decision better than one made based on blind trust of people who've proven themselves untrustworthy? How do you know what kind of a start this is if you haven't read any of it? Don't you think some of our country's problems might have started with this blind trust, "Don't read it, just vote 'yes,'" attitude? It certainly couldn't have helped.



Back to the original post though. I was actually more concerned originally with how people who had read at least something of the bill (other than just the intro) felt about it and how they felt about a representative voting for something his voters (read "BOSSES") are largely against. Does it not disturb anyone else that the representatives we elected to represent OUR interests in congress are voting how they want to, rather than how the majority of their voters want them to vote? Is it ok for reps to vote for something they haven't read? Those are the 2 questions I was trying to get at most. Lloyd Doggett just made a good example to use. If there is that much opposition from his voters, shouldn't he at least show consideration for their concerns? Isn't that what he's elected to do? Or was he elected to hold a title, vote how he wants, disregard voter input, and make a lot of money for it?

This post has been edited by Jax: 10 August 2009 - 05:41 PM

[Texaswheelz]

To your main question then. The thing is their is accountability, it's called elections. Politicians vote against the people that put them in office all of the time yet get re-elected because the majority of the people in that precinct are for that political party regardless of if they represent them or not when they vote.

I'm not sure I understand how you think the government should work. Are you saying that before every single vote they make, they stop and run a poll in their precinct to see how the people think they should vote, if so then what is the point of their being politicians? Just run a poll for every single issue. Of course every poll that is run cost millions of dollars and you'll soon go broke, but if your going to ask the people on one subject shouldn't you ask them on every? So while I think it would be great that they voted the way i wanted every single time, i know it's not possible. That is how are government works, you elect the people that you wish to make your vote for you. If after they are elected they are not following the way that you think they should then when they come up for re-election you vote them out.

I know it's elemental and I'm sure that you know all of that already, but you haven't said another way on how it should work. Do they just vote the way we want every time every time we gather to protest their votes? How do you know the majority don't agree? It's always been said that the minority are the loudest.

"Or was he elected to hold a title, vote how he wants, disregard voter input, and make a lot of money for it?"

Yea pretty much, he was elected to vote how he chooses, voter input was when voters elected him and whether or not they re-elect him again, which they probably will. If you have a work around and a way to completely restructure the government then you'd best get around to getting your self elected...

[Jax]

"To your main question then. The thing is their is accountability, it's called elections. Politicians vote against the people that put them in office all of the time yet get re-elected because the majority of the people in that precinct are for that political party regardless of if they represent them or not when they vote."

I understand that many people vote for a party more than a person. That's part of the problem. The party system has led us to such sharp divisions, which I stated earlier make for nice distraction while the feds rip us off.

"I'm not sure I understand how you think the government should work. Are you saying that before every single vote they make, they stop and run a poll in their precinct to see how the people think they should vote, if so then what is the point of their being politicians? Just run a poll for every single issue. Of course every poll that is run cost millions of dollars and you'll soon go broke, but if your going to ask the people on one subject shouldn't you ask them on every? So while I think it would be great that they voted the way i wanted every single time, i know it's not possible. That is how are government works, you elect the people that you wish to make your vote for you. If after they are elected they are not following the way that you think they should then when they come up for re-election you vote them out."

There used to be polls on bills like this that were determined to be "of utmost importance." Not every single bill, but when it's concerning healthcare, wouldn't it be nice if they did a poll? Hell, there's lots of little stuff they pass all the time that makes no difference. If they're so set on convincing us how important this bill is, and to support it, wouldn't their argument be much more supported if several hadn't admitted to not reading it? Do you not see polls conducted every day in different areas about all kinds of stuff? Granted, it's just a sampling usually, but how is it too much to ask on an issue as important as the govt says this bill is?

"I know it's elemental and I'm sure that you know all of that already, but you haven't said another way on how it should work. Do they just vote the way we want every time every time we gather to protest their votes? How do you know the majority don't agree? It's always been said that the minority are the loudest."

How do you know whether or not you even agree with something you haven't read, let alone whether or not there is majority agreement? Have the majority even read the bill? The majority of people I've asked so far haven't read much, if any of it. I'll start a poll in the poll both here and see what kind of responses I get. There might be more people who've read more of it than I think, but we'll see. If we gather in the numbers we have lately, you would think at least some consideration might be given to taking a poll. Hell, I'd be happy with more of them at least answering questions of those who are concerned. That hasn't been done very much lately either. Mostly because they don't know the answers to the questions regarding the bill because they haven't even read the whole thing. Who the hell says that the minority is the loudest? I've not heard that one yet, although it is quite funny. You see, in "Robert's Rules of Order," the guide to parliamentary procedure, there is a thing called a voice vote. Read up on it and get back to me. There's also a part called discussion on the motion before the meeting. Why hold these "Town Hall" meetings if there's not going to be any discussion on the bill? Doesn't that seem the slightest bit odd to you? Maybe not, but it certainly makes me wonder what's really going on with this whole deal.

"'Or was he elected to hold a title, vote how he wants, disregard voter input, and make a lot of money for it?'

Yea pretty much, he was elected to vote how he chooses, voter input was when voters elected him and whether or not they re-elect him again, which they probably will. If you have a work around and a way to completely restructure the government then you'd best get around to getting your self elected..."

And here I was thinking he was elected to serve the people. I must have misread that constitution thing in govt class. I guess when the shit gets too bad for people to handle, maybe they'll stop voting for him. Too bad it has to get horrible before so many will even think of voting for somebody else. How would you propose I get myself elected? I'm not black (not even half), I'm not female, I'm not mentally retarded. I'm in a chair, but that's already been done, so what is it that makes you think this "affirmative action" mindset crowd would vote for me? How do you propose I pay for the campaign? Would you like to sponsor me? I will gladly run for office here as soon as I get some campaign sponsorship (Gotta have tons of money before anyone will even think about voting for you). Could I get sponsorship from somebody honest though? Or would I have to sell my soul like countless others in politics? What makes you think that people would vote for a guy who hates the politics game? Of course, it would make for some interesting discussions over dinner... "So what about that guy running for congress that claims to hate politics?"--"Well, he might have a point, but isn't he rather contradictory by running for office?"--"I don't know about this idea of voting for somebody who isn't a member of the DNC or RNC. If they don't want him, why should we?"

Another tidbit- Isn't there a chance that the federal politicians having their "special" healthcare packages paid for out of social security but never putting into it might be another big part of the problem? They will still be able to do that under this bill. Wonder where the money for their healthcare will come from when they put us into so much debt that all the countries we've borrowed from quit lending to us? Don't these politicians get paid enough to be able to put into the system like the common citizen? If those of us who make far less than they do can put in, they should too.

This post has been edited by Jax: 10 August 2009 - 05:50 PM

[edlee]

I put a bit longer post in the other thread that you opened, Jax. I'll write here. too, but try to keep it short,, you will I hope note that I'm not stuffing quotes in here.

First,,, No ,, obviously you weren't listening in class. The whole idea of a representative democracy is to prevent the "Politics by Poll" you are suggesting. Surely you can see how easily poles are skewed by timely advertising and odd phrasing in the polls themselves.

Read all you want,, but I,, and if you admit,, you,, have noticed that most of what is proposed in this version of the bill, doesn't include the complete text of the laws it will be changing,,, simply telling you to insert or delete phrases from those texts. Did you read those laws and insert/delete as asked?

We pay these guys a lot,,, give them huge staffs and allowances for experts in all fields. What makes you think that you,,, or I,,, or any of those talking heads on TV are going to be better at understanding legislating than those who have spent their lives doing it.
You may believe that they are all corrupt,,, but so what? That's how they get what their constituents want,, not by being nice. If you don't like what they get for you,,, vote the bastard out,,, but until then,,, let him do his job. Read it or not,, every legislator up there knows more about what it really says than you will when you finish. That's is their job,, trust them or don't,,, but polls aren't worth the paper it takes to wipe your ass.

Sorry,, got carried away there,, I'll try to do better.
ed

[edlee]

I apologize ,Jax,, your link,, tho the title confused me,, turned out to be a better one than those I have been using. I wil continue to use it in any discussions we may have.

To that end,, it would be helpful to me,, and probably all, here, who are interested, if you would tell us where you get you ideas on what is or isn't in this huge pile. Like that part about unenrolling participants, from page 44. From what I can get out of it, it says that it can stop enrollments,,, that means new enrollments,, not dropping anyone. I've reread it several times,, maybe if you give me the line numbers I might see what you are saying.

Since we are talking about how much of it one reads,, It would be easier for everybody if these compaints were spelled out a little better.

Still reading,,, wish they would have put page numbers in the table of contents.
ed

[Jax]

Sorry if the quotes bother you. They help me in addressing things. Please bare with me.

"First,,, No ,, obviously you weren't listening in class. The whole idea of a representative democracy is to prevent the "Politics by Poll" you are suggesting. Surely you can see how easily poles are skewed by timely advertising and odd phrasing in the polls themselves."

Of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not for the select few or the rich or the govt itself, but for the people. That's how our govt was set up. The representative democracy we have was actually set up in order that the federal govt might have an easier time working for us, the people. Wouldn't you at least think some consideration for directly answering the people's questions would be a step in the right direction? By the way, the timely advertising and odd phrasing are two of the favorite tools politicians (and the media) use to keep us doing what they want. Watch presidential candidates debating sometime for a prime example.

"Read all you want,, but I,, and if you admit,, you,, have noticed that most of what is proposed in this version of the bill, doesn't include the complete text of the laws it will be changing,,, simply telling you to insert or delete phrases from those texts. Did you read those laws and insert/delete as asked?"

I'm working on getting those laws to be able to read them all as well. Some of it isn't so much 'insert/delete', as it is 'this shall or shall not change,' or 'except where allowed/prohibited by...' Most of the "insert/delete" stuff was in the shorter, revised committee version.

"We pay these guys a lot,,, give them huge staffs and allowances for experts in all fields."

Yes, we do. But who of the reps have hired anyone knowledgeable of what is needed for the best interest of the public? How many of those well-paid "experts" have ever had to actually depend on health insurance for their care? How many of the reps have had to do so? Might be a few, but certainly not the majority of them.

"What makes you think that you,,, or I,,, or any of those talking heads on TV are going to be better at understanding legislating than those who have spent their lives doing it."

That's part of the problem right there. What makes you think those reps have actually spent their lives understanding anything about healthcare or law? If they admit to not even reading bills they pass, and admit to not having all the information on it's contents, how can you say they are really doing their jobs? The talking heads on tv, I wouldn't really know about. I watch some direct interviews with politicians, and some of the "town hall" meetings, but I'm not much for the rest of TV, particularly Fox and CNN. (They're getting really good at using weapons of mass distraction.) We don't even have cable. I watch 2 tv shows online, and buy the other 2 on DVD.

"You may believe that they are all corrupt,,, but so what? That's how they get what their constituents want,, not by being nice. If you don't like what they get for you,,, vote the bastard out,,, but until then,,, let him do his job. Read it or not,, every legislator up there knows more about what it really says than you will when you finish. That's is their job,, trust them or don't,,, but polls aren't worth the paper it takes to wipe your ass."

Again, I may not know a whole lot when I finish reading it alone, but I am still willing to try. Where are these so-called "experts" that supposedly work for these reps? What do they have to say? Will they be on our healthcare plan? Or is it not good enough for them either? Don't you want a system that covers everyone equally? Doesn't it bother you that the new system won't be utilized by those who wrote it? What does that say about the bill? How do you figure that the reps all know more about it than I ever will? Some may, but many don't know much of anything about it. Several have admitted to it. One even said something about not having the time to read it himself, and not having enough lawyers to have it all translated for him. Also, several dem representatives have made contradictory statements as to what's in the bill. Of course we expect the dems to say something and the repubs to refute it, but when members of the same party say different things, it starts to make me wonder...Especially when it's the "all for one and one for all" dems. If they're contradicting each other about what's in the bill, is it just to play the public, or are they really just that unsure of what's really in the bill and kind of make shit up as they go along? And doesn't that kind of thing go against your theory that they all know more than I ever will about it?

I'm afraid I already know some of the issues that are going to arise if/when this bill passes. I hope I'm wrong, but I can see the denials of service coming en masse, and the hellishly long waits for treatment approvals and payment approvals, and even for enrollment in the govt plan. As for voting the bastards out, I'm for it, but try to find a majority that really give enough of a shit what happens up there to do something about it. Gonna take a while. Most will just piss and moan about it with me, but they won't show up at the voting booth like I will. As I've said before, whether I think it makes a difference or not, I'm still going to do what I can as long as there's a chance it could make a difference. And what more is a vote than a poll that makes a decision?

edlee, on Aug 10 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

I apologize ,Jax,, your link,, tho the title confused me,, turned out to be a better one than those I have been using. I wil continue to use it in any discussions we may have.

To that end,, it would be helpful to me,, and probably all, here, who are interested, if you would tell us where you get you ideas on what is or isn't in this huge pile. Like that part about unenrolling participants, from page 44. From what I can get out of it, it says that it can stop enrollments,,, that means new enrollments,, not dropping anyone. I've reread it several times,, maybe if you give me the line numbers I might see what you are saying.

Since we are talking about how much of it one reads,, It would be easier for everybody if these compaints were spelled out a little better.

Still reading,,, wish they would have put page numbers in the table of contents.
ed

First, I apologize for the misleading title on the link. I'm just an ass.

Ok, I'll try to refrain from the quotes since that one's short. Simply put, enrollment being suspended is going to cause people to not be able to start, and/or renew private/employer-provided insurance. Enrollment isn't always just new enrollments, it's also used as a term for renewal, or re-enrollment (At least with BC/BS). For many employers/employees, renewal comes annually. That means that any time the govt suspends an insurance provider's enrollment, all the people who are just becoming eligible for that insurance at work, and likely many renewals as well, are going to be without insurance until either the enrollment suspension is lifted, or they get on the govt plan, which could take a while. Doesn't it seem that this could be used as a means of forcing people onto the govt plan? Why force us to go with the govt plan? Let's say I can afford private insurance. Is it not my right to choose which insurance without fear of the govt coming in and telling me I can't use it, thereby forcing me to either find a different insurer, or go on the govt plan? It's ok to kill babies and call it "freedom of choice," but it's not ok for me to choose what insurance company I use? How does that make sense?

Plus, can you imagine the flood of people signing up on the govt plan if BC/BS gets suspended for the month of November? That's when the entire Kohler Co. workforce comes up for enrollment/renewal. (I worked for them pre-injury. I was actually waiting for my insurance with BC/BS to kick in and had my accident prior to my enrollment being processed.) That's a WHOLE LOT of people, considering the size of Kohler, Wisconsin alone (yes, they have their own city). Just imagine if a couple other companies (HealthSouth Rehab is one) that have enrollment/renewal in Nov end up having to switch all their employees over to the govt plan at once. Can you imagine the backup that would cause? I've seen the backup with medicare, and the ridiculous 2 yr wait after starting SSDI before medicare enrollment and eligibility. It took almost 6 months after I became eligible for them to get my enrollment processed. Imagine when they're having to process MILLIONS more at a time. How long will how many millions have to wait just to get enrolled, much less treated? Granted, for some, it will be better than never getting treated, but many will die prior to treatment due to the waits. Some will as it is now, but watch the numbers climb within the transition period if/when this bill passes. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I may be right.

I'll do some more digging through the bill to find what I was looking at a couple days ago about the taxes and fines bit, and get you the page(s) and lines. It's all quite interesting to me, really. Personally, I'm with you on liking the earlier bill better. There was a lot less crap in there and it made a whole lot more sense. By the way, did you ever stop to think "Wonder why they didn't put the page numbers in the table of contents?" I can think of a few reasons...

PS-About the lobbyists and campaign sponsors...There was a 300 page addendum tacked onto the end of the stimulus bill shortly before the bill's passing allowing for stimulus (our taxes) money to be given to Obama's campaign supporters, among others. Wonder how much more all the reps knew about that one than we did? Considering how several admitted to having no clue what was actually in the addendum, I think it's safe to say there were plenty of them in the dark with us on that one.

This post has been edited by Jax: 11 August 2009 - 07:15 AM

[edlee]

Not sure where to start,,, how about page 44. No,, it does NOT refer to renewals,, as a matter of fact there are lines that require longer grace periods than are now the norm and requirements to keep everyone insured at at least the basic plan level.

As for them not having the same insurance as the rest of us.. Sorry,, they have the same choices we have,,, they can choose to stay with a "grandfathered plan" the same as we can. If you want to pay more to get a better one,, you and they have that right.

Nothing I have read has said that there will be any withholding of services,, in fact the language says just the opposite.

And please cite a link to that 300 page addendum so I can read how it singles out Obama supporters for payments. I'm afraid you are starting to sound too much like FOX for me to bother with this discussion.

With the volume of your posts growing and the content staying,,, and saying the same things,,, would it be possible for you to cite page and line numbers? Surely if you have found all this stuff by personally reading it, you could save us a lot of trouble by telling us where you read it.

I'm not saying you're blowing smoke,,, but I'ld like to see the fire for myself, before I tell you whether I think you're full of it or not.

If I agree with you, I will be the first to say so,,, if I don't,, you'll know that . too.

ed

[edlee]

What a load,,,, Just spent the last 3 hours or so doing nothing but trying to put page numbers to the table of contents that's on the first four pages of this thing.

Navigating through this pile is bad enough,, trying to read and make sense of it's many parts would take an army of staff,, each with their own little piece of the pie.

Compiling this monster must have taken quite a toll on a lot of young staffers,, and that's without the changes. I don't think it's a matter of who has read it in it's entirety,, as much as who has the attention span to discuss it rationally in it's entirety.

I have ,, at least,, gotten myself a way to check on facts,,, if they are cited,,, so I think I'll just doubt what anybody says about it till they tell me where they read it.
ed

[Jax]

edlee, on Aug 11 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

What a load,,,, Just spent the last 3 hours or so doing nothing but trying to put page numbers to the table of contents that's on the first four pages of this thing.

Navigating through this pile is bad enough,, trying to read and make sense of it's many parts would take an army of staff,, each with their own little piece of the pie.

Compiling this monster must have taken quite a toll on a lot of young staffers,, and that's without the changes. I don't think it's a matter of who has read it in it's entirety,, as much as who has the attention span to discuss it rationally in it's entirety.

I have ,, at least,, gotten myself a way to check on facts,,, if they are cited,,, so I think I'll just doubt what anybody says about it till they tell me where they read it.
ed

And you wonder why I'm questioning how much the reps actually know about it... Sure, many/most probably do know more than I. That should be a given. However, I'm not convinced they understand it in it's entirety yet, and for the president to put a not too distant deadline on them for when they have to have it passed is just baffling. I understand that reform in our helathcare is needed. I'm all for working to make it better. I just don't like the way that the president says it's so important to make healthcare better, but is pushing for passage of a bill that is obviously not totally understood by all those he expects to support it. How can they support something they don't understand? I mean, I can understand anyone not supporting it until he/she understands it. But even semi-blindly supporting it? Really? Watch some of the "town hall" meeting videos and listen to what some reps have said regarding this bill. I'm not talking about on the major stations, but local stations and local station videos online. Just what the reps say at the actual meetings, not the BS commentaries. I'm not convinced that the ones I've listened to really understand this bill. I'm glad you have a way to check on the facts. I'm working on checking much of the information I've been given as well, as it's apparent I'm misunderstanding some of what I've read. There are tons of things in this bill that are questionable to me. I wonder who the commissioner would be. I also don't like how there are so many things the commissioner has sole power and discretion to decide upon. Makes me wonder how many people will be working for the commissioner, and how closely the commissioner will be keeping an eye on them. And who's keeping how close an eye on the commissioner. Where did the "checks and balances" idea go?

You are right about the matter of who has the attention span to discuss it rationally in it's entirety. I must admit that I don't. I'm kind of upset about the whole deal, so at some point rationality gets lost in the attempts at figuring out the entire pile. The next question is- How many of our reps have the attention span to discuss it rationally in it's entirety? Can they keep that rationality while discussing it with members of the other party? I know that's what we pay them for, but the questions should still be asked.

I have re-read p44. If renewals are not covered, great. How do we really know though? If you have found the definition of "enrollment" set forth in this bill, I'd like to know where it is. I likely missed it. (Just because there's a definition in the dictionary, doesn't mean that's the definition they're going to use. That's why they put all those definition segments in there.) Even if it's only for new enrollment, that could still affect staggering numbers of people. Think if it's United or Aetna. How many new people sign up at a time across the whole country? I'm not sure the exact numbers, but it's got to be a good many. If I understand correctly, it would work something like this- If United is "enrollment suspended" for 2 weeks, then the employers who provide that company's insurance will have to either find a new insurer for newer employees, wait to enroll those employees until the suspension is lifted, or go to the govt for insurance. Which option do you think most would pick?

Just some food for thought about the possible numbers: I used to work for Kohler Co., who used BC/BS. At Kohler's plant in Brownwood, TX alone, there were 4 of us on my team in plastics that became eligible for enrollment during the November 06 enrollment period. There were 3 other full teams in plastics, each of which had at least 1 member reach eligibility to enroll then as well. Now, there are also the support teams (maintenance, supply, warehouse, shipping, etc.) to consider. As said before, I'm not sure the exact number, but 7 in plastics (the smallest division) alone, at least 4 in one-piece casting, at least 1 in th mold shop, and a new nurse on duty at night. That gives me a total of 13 that I knew of personally. Now, that's not a whole lot, but add in all the other employers that use that 1 insurer, and add in the individuals, and I'll bet there's plenty of people who will be affected.

Also, where do they draw the line? If BC/BS was enrollment suspended, would all those whose enrollments were being processed stop being processed? If so, how does that help to get everyone insurance? If they were processed and enrolled, but no new applications were taken, then you have people scrambling to get insurance somewhere else. Either way, it's not really a situation that helps the President's stated purpose of the bill.

How will we know when we can or can't enroll in which companies? How will we decide which company to use? Think it's hard to decide now? Wait for this to happen- When enrollments are suspended for 1 insurer, the insurer is fined, then (maybe) gets straightened out. It then passes the cost on to it's customers. Then those customers leave for lack of affordability (and isn't affordability part of the president's stated reasons for this bill?). Then where are we?

PS, I'm with you and SF on the "finding the right parts to study." Gotta admit, there's only a (comparative) few pages I've found any real meaning on them.

This post has been edited by Jax: 12 August 2009 - 04:44 AM

[Jax]

Just found this on yahoo news.It's insane that somebody painted a giant swastika on a reps office sign. But the rest of the article highlighted something to me.

Maybe the biggest problem with the whole healthcare issue is the misinformation/lack of information. The (if you will) of trying to make sense of it all. I know I've been feeling it since the first time I opened that PDF text of the 1,018 page bill.

People don't understand the bill(s). Not just congress, but too many of the American people. People don't feel as if they are being listened to by the reps. People are learning not to trust politicians, and some that hadn't before are even starting to put it into practice.

Maybe it's that feeling Americans get when they don't understand something that's making the issue worse. Maybe the "rushing through trying to pass a bill" that is a big part of what's got people freaked. Maybe the people don't feel heard. Maybe there's just a whole lot of people who don't want to get screwed like we did with Bush. Of course, the media isn't helping.

I know they're not going to take the time to do this, but here's a thought-- Maybe if the president and a few congress people had a video series available on TV and via the web to explain the basics of the bill(s) to the people (in language we can make sense of), there wouldn't be so much division. maybe make the video show the page being explained on the right side of the screen, and the explainer on the left. There would be no unruly crowds to interrupt that way, and the reps would save a LOT of our tax dollars (as well as time) if they weren't traveling so much for the "town hall" meetings. Plus, how much money are they already spending on advertising for the overhaul? Wouldn't facts be more helpful than freaking commercials? How many people actually pay attention to commercials?

They could even use the internet time to answer questions... Maybe post a FAQ section, and maybe even have a rep or 2 answer a question via video every so often. At least then, we'd have an easier time making at least slightly more informed decisions as to whether or not we like it. Just an idea for improvement, as it seems the "town hall" meetings aren't doing much good. Although, I do think they were a great idea, the application didn't work as well as had been hoped. Perhaps, even the explanatory videos could be given out to all the reps. We live in the digital age, why the hell not use it. Could make things much more efficient if done correctly. Wouldn't it be so much easier if they just gave us straight answers? I know, I know...wishful thinking. I'm still sending these ideas in a letter to some reps and in a nice email to the White House.

This post has been edited by Jax: 12 August 2009 - 05:51 PM

[edlee]

This swastika BS is just an extention of the anger out there in the country. Not necessarily over healthcare,, people just aren't happy. The ones layed off worry about getting called back,, the ones working are worried about getting laid off,, the small buisness owners are worried because nobodies buying what they don't need badly.

That's the real value of having representatives making the kind of decisions we are talking about here.

To your concern:
[

Quote

quote]If I understand correctly, it would work something like this- If United is "enrollment suspended" for 2 weeks, then the employers who provide that company's insurance will have to either find a new insurer for newer employees, wait to enroll those employees until the suspension is lifted, or go to the govt for insurance. Which option do you think most would pick?

Well,, first,, nothing says that any one of the penalties shown MUST be used at all. The whole point of having a Commissioner to make certain decisions is to prevent poroblems like what you are envisioning from occurring.

I went over the original Senate bill again,, and compared it with the table of contents of this larger bill. Guess what I found? If you read the first one, you find that you have covered everything in the new one,, except, and it's a big except,,, for what might call the fine print. The stuff telling how the original concept is to actually work, within the present framework of laws we have.

In every instance I checked,, there is oversight on each part of the bill,,, each of those overseen by the commissioner., who serves at the discretion of the president,,, just like his cabinet.

Page 46 tells you that he MUST seek "consultation and coordination" from a list of agencies, who already oversee a part of his stuff,,,Medicare, Medicaid,VA,, and more.

Find something else to worry about,, this part isn't any different than a cabinet post.

Oh,,, and by the way,, the one thing that is set out very clearly is that if you like what you have, you WILL be allowed to keep it.

page 72 Insurance Exchange

And for the premiums,,,, they are in here,too. If that guy F###s up and gets penalized,, he isn't allowed to raise his rates.
He has certain standards of care he MUST meet . If you want better coverage ( including dental and vision) you can pay for it,,, or your boss cann if you have it in your contract. Still a matter of bargaining.

Nothing in this bill is carved in stone,, even if passed,,, except that YOU WILL HAVE BASIC COVERAGE AT A REASONABLE RATE.

If we can get this thing passed,, we can whittle it to shape over the next ten years or so,,, if we don't get it passed we stay on the only "slippery slope" in the whole equation.

We can have a little FAQ right here,, using the bill itself to answer a lot of it.
ed

[Jax]

I appreciate the clarification. How long will it take 1 commissioner to do all the stuff that's in his/her job description? There's a whole lot of stuff the commissioner is responsible for, and I understand that most of it will be delegated. How closely will those delegates be monitored? We are again opening up a huge door of opportunity here to get screwed if we don't watch out for ourselves. Plus, where is the money really going to come from to pay for this system and all that new employment to begin with? How long after initial implementation until we break even? Or will we at all? Remember the promise made by Obama during his campaign that families making less than $250,000/yr will see NO tax increase under his plan. So, unless we do away with useless govt 'programs' and quit letting them spend us into oblivion, or tax the hell out of the families making $250,000/yr or more, how the hell does he honestly expect to live up to his promise? Where do we go when other govts won't loan us any more money? How well will this system work if the country can't pay for it?

There is an issue that's definitely not going to be the same in application as it is in the bill (theory) regarding premiums. Maybe the premiums don't go up, but there is definitely going to be at least some of the cost passed to the customers. The insurance companies will find a way. They always do. The govt regulates lots of businesses that find ways to make their money one way or another. They can always come up with work-arounds.

Especially with companies like Scott & White here in TX. Scott & White owns the insurance company and the hospitals. That gives them a lot of room to work with in the area of passing costs along to the customer and getting away with it. It will happen if they are not EXTREMELY closely monitored. I figure the odds are that there are more companies similar to this somewhere in the US, though I have no personal experience with any others.

Yes, we can have a FAQ here with the bill.

Will others who question it do the same? Will they understand it if they do? Will it make a difference?

A decade to straighten this bill out? I'll bet if they took all the money they used to try to advertise this bill and used it instead to go to the people and ask the people who use healthcare all the time (some of us here fit that description) what's really needed, they could have it half straightened out before Obama's end of the year deadline, and totally straightened out within 5 yrs tops from date of passage.

There are too many people in this country who are starting to feel like the govt is running over them and like their voices don't matter. (Especially after W somehow made into the White House for a second term.) I'm obviously in that group. That feeling is another thing driving the anger train straight down that slope. So rushing through this whole deal without paying attention to the people is probably one of the things that congress and Obama should reconsider if they really want to get this thing to go through more smoothly. Just telling the American people "This bill needs to be passed. We are going to pass this bill, regardless of what you say" is only making the situation and tension much worse than is necessary.

PS-Start reading at pg 167, and tell me what you think about taxing somebody (up to an amount equal to the average premium) for not having health insurance "at any time during the taxable year." If they can't afford insurance, then how the hell is the tax going to help them to get it? Or is this just another way of shoving us toward the govt plan? I see the part later about the waiver application for "cases of hardship," but how objective is the govt going to be when there's money in it for them? Are they really going to be auditing every legal citizen in the country to check for health coverage status? Isn't that going to cost a hell of a lot of money if they do? And how about the tax not applying to non-resident aliens? Wonder if that means the illegals too? Kind of has me a bit concerned. How many more illegals are we going to have over here not paying in, but still taking out of our taxes every day? Is it just me, or is our govt starting to sound like they're just in it for themselves? If Obama wanted to be an insurance agent, he could have gone to work at BC/BS. They could use the help. Too bad his entire presidential legacy will be "He was the first health insurance salesman to be elected president."

This post has been edited by Jax: 13 August 2009 - 09:54 AM

[edlee]

Sounds like you don't have much trust in Obama,,and from the remark about W,, didn't have much in him either.

I'll check out Pg 167 after I finish this post,,, my browser drops me from this address when I try to go anywhere else. I need a bit more expertise with computers.

Just for fun,,, check out pg 143 line 3 to 7,,,, it might give you a little lift.

As for how it,, the country,, will pay for it. That's a big question,,, how will we pay for the stimulus package,, or Bush's,, or the war in Irq/Afganistan? It'll get paid for,, or the country goes belly up,, then what difference will it make.

As for insurance salesman,,, well, somebody has to push for this,, it IS needed,, might as well be him.

I gotta tell you,,, I knew we needed to change our healthcare system when before the Clinton's first started pushing it. They didn't have a chance, with a republican congress. Now might be the last chance we have,, for quite a while,, to get it done.

Try something different, Jax,, try looking for something you like, in this "pile". Print out the first four pages as a referance,, it's the table of contents,, maybe down in division C,, where they try to get more doctors, nurses, turned out. Another Idea I like.

I'll come back after I check out the bill, again.
ed

[Jax]

edlee, on Aug 13 2009, 07:51 PM, said:

Sounds like you don't have much trust in Obama,,and from the remark about W,, didn't have much in him either.

Try something different, Jax,, try looking for something you like, in this "pile".

I don't have much faith in our society or our govt really.

I'm working on finding things I like. I do like that the bill has parts to help motivate people to become or remain medical professionals. Particularly since my wife is a nurse and I'm studying to become an OT.

What I'm talking about by the insurance salesman comment--How many honest health insurance salesmen have you dealt with/bought policies from? Hopefully more than I, as I haven't met any yet. They rank just below most lawyers and Bill O'Reilley on my BS-o-meter charts. That's a big part of why my BS-o-meter started redlining when Obama started his healthcare push. It feels like it's just that-a push; like he's taunting the American people. It's like he's saying "This is what you're going to get, regardless of what you want or really need." Personally, I feel he's just being way too pushy for the American people. I know he's too pushy for me.

Yes, I'm in agreement that we need a huge overhaul, but not quite so huge in healthcare as in how we do business altogether. The govt needs to stop spending millions on advertising, and start spending the money on those things they claim are so important. Why couldn't they have started by repealing the Medicare 2yr wait period? That would have solved a good chunk of the problem, I guarantee you. How about they take those that are going to be auditing the public to check for insurance coverage, and instead use them to find the ones that don't have, but could qualify for, Medicare/Medicaid and help them get it? I bet that would get a bunch of people taken care of too. Then, there would likely be less than half as many people uninsured, and the govt could just amend some Medicare/Medicaid code, and take care of the rest that way. That would be much more helpful much sooner than this bill will be.

Hell, it might even pave the way for a bill to be streamlined over the course of the next three yrs and help ease the transition and the people's minds.

(skip the following paragraph if you want to get straight to the point)

[As somebody who's gone through the current system, I can tell you that the state picks up for most of the care when someone without insurance becomes disabled. At least TX does. The DRS paid for this $5,800 GTi I'm in right now. When I was injured, somebody that knew my parents called somebody she knew at the DRS. (The "case worker" was an idiot, so good thing somebody did her job for her.) While I was still in the hospital, a DRS counselor called me to schedule a meeting. When he came to visit, he let me know that almost all necessary things denied by insurance could be covered by DRS. Might take a bit to get, but a bit is much better than not at all. Scott & White healthplan refused to cover any cost of any wheelchair. Even though there was a certain specified amount in the insurance policy, the "board" had the right to deny coverage based on...well, I guess just plain old greed and/or stupidity. I was actually told (on the phone) by one of the healthplan reps that I must not need a wheelchair or they would have approved payment! I politely told her to f*** off. I bought my first chair with money from a collection taken up by some family friends in my small hometown. The second chair I got was paid for with the money I had left over. Once I got figured out exactly how I wanted my chair, and most of how I needed it set up, I called my DRS counselor and let him know I was ready. That was on a Wednesday. By Thursday at about 2pm, he had me set up for evaluation on the following Monday. He even made sure every time I made any kind of appointment through or with him to ask if I would need transportation (until I showed him the truck...). Also, there's tons of free clinics all over the country for those who don't have insurance. I've been to one a couple times. It was a few yrs before my SCI, but I remember how good they were to me. I got stitches in my elbow at the first, and in my knee at the second.]


Sorry for the long story. There is a point here: We could just revamp what already exists, since it's got a majority of the people covered. A few relatively small changes could make a relatively large difference, and likely with far less resistance. You seem to be at least a little bit of a fan of using Medicare/Medicaid to make a basis for change or for a new system, so I'll start with them as the basis for my plan. Just for grins.

Medicare/Medicaid could be the plans for Primary Care Doctor visits, prescription drug coverage, and emergency room care for most everyone with a few relatively simple amendments (As long as they paid out. Maybe get some Medicare staffers that did nothing but make sure GP offices were properly trained to use the medicare coding system and maybe even simplify it a bit). Heck, add basic dental and vision into them as well.

The state rehab agencies could take care of the big stuff like life-changing injuries or conditions (which is what they are set up to do).

Private insurance could be used by those who can afford it and choose it in addition to... or rather than... Medicare/Medicaid. If they drop their private insurance, for whatever reason, no waiting period to get on Medicare/Medicaid-just log on/come in/call in and sign up.

We don't really need a big govt spend-a-thon or tons of advertisement airtime, or even the town hall meetings they've all spent millions flying all over the country to attend. Hell, they could do this stuff in a few weeks really (without even having to leave DC or face any of the unruly crowds), and I bet that most of the privately insured wouldn't even bat an eye. A 1-2% sales tax increase on everything but fuel and already-tax-exempted sales would cover all the cost and then some I would be willing to bet, and lower income tax by a percent or so for those families that make under $250,000/yr (since that seems to be the govt's dividing line already, we'll just stick with it). I'll bet we'd still come out ahead overall, or at least break even. That is if there weren't too many sticky govt fingers dipping into the pot like they have been doing with social security.

There does need to be "healthcare quality standard" legislation to go along with all that, but that could be done comparatively easily by itself. Break the whole overhaul into some smaller parts. Work with those parts to craft a well-built system that takes care of every American, without the need for so much pushiness and tension.

Whaddaya think about that approach? You think it might be easier for the American people to accept? Think it might be a bit more efficient in affecting change the people could see? Think it could be a bit more cost effective? Who knows? But I'm open to input, and I wish congress was too. I'm trying to look for the improvement side of things, rather than just being the basher I fear I've been lately.

PS-I did totally miss p. 143. That's what i get for reading so late at night. Must have had my head up my . Glad to know that's in there.

This post has been edited by Jax: 14 August 2009 - 06:29 AM

[edlee]

I know what you mean about the late nights,,, stay up way too late myself,,, so if I type something particularly odd,,, you'll know why.

I like your plan,, especially the sales tax part,, as I've been touting much the same to whoever I can get to listen.

I gotta tell you, tho,,, everything you say you would like to see, is actually in this pile of rags they call a bill. It's phrased differently,, and written in the ,,, I was going to say legalese,, but the stuff the put in legislations is even harder to translate.

Problem is,, bills don't get passed in any other language. The whole idea of this thing is to get everybody covered and stop the increases in costs. I see a lot in what I'm reading that serves exactly those two purposes.

Please understand this, Jax,,, I'm old,, 62,,, worked all my life,, saved all I could,, was lucky enough to have good insurance,,, if this bill doesn't pass now,, or ever,, it's not going to affect me much. But there are an awful lot of people circling the drain,,, I'd like to see somebody put the plug back in before they're gone.

The ones who are on the loosing end,, if this thing doesn't go through,,, aren't the "poor",, they already get evrything paid for,,, it certainly isn't the rich,,, they have good insurance and can afford increases. It's us,, somewhere in the middle,, who actually own something that could be taken away to pay for our care.

Just like always,,, "stuck in the middle with you",,, can't even remember the song it's from,, but it sounded appropriate.

Think I'll go back to the bill and look for the stuff you suggested,, see if I can pick them out of this ,,, I don't know what to call it.
ed

[edlee]

Jax, You have no idea how much I hate doing it this way,, but here goes

Quote

Why couldn't they have started by repealing the Medicare 2yr wait period?

Won't need to,, it's the same as the Public Insurance Option,, except you pay according to what you earn,, earn less,, pay less.

Quote

Medicare/Medicaid could be the plans for Primary Care Doctor visits, prescription drug coverage, and emergency room care for most everyone with a few relatively simple amendments (As long as they paid out. Maybe get some Medicare staffers that did nothing but make sure GP offices were properly trained to use the medicare coding system and maybe even simplify it a bit). Heck, add basic dental and vision into them as well.

The state rehab agencies could take care of the big stuff like life-changing injuries or conditions (which is what they are set up to do).

Same as above,,, even the vision and dental if you get the upper plan level,, And the standardizing of the billing and coding for ALL areas is also in there.

Quote

If they drop their private insurance, for whatever reason, no waiting period to get on Medicare/Medicaid-just log on/come in/call in and sign up.

There is a thirty day grace period in which to pick up the lower level coverage, if you stay with the same insurer it will be a key stroke or two, if another,, a bit more,, but access is required in the bill so you need not do without.

Quote

There does need to be "healthcare quality standard" legislation to go along with all that, but that could be done comparatively easily by itself. Break the whole overhaul into some smaller parts. Work with those parts to craft a well-built system that takes care of every American, without the need for so much pushiness and tension.

The standards are in there,, minimumly based on medicare/medicaid and going up from there. But you know the way our political system works,,, we won't get another shot at this,,, it has to be all at once or the insurance/drug company money will be able to gut the thing till it can't work,,, which is their plan,, even the Republican party leadership seems to be willing to go along with it, just to make sure a Democratic President doesn't succeed. The Dems leadership would do the same thing in their place, I'm sure.
I don't view either parties leadership with a great deal of respect,,,, if any.

I think we've beat this horse about all it will bear. I don't care which side anybody wants to take on the subject,, you all know mine. I just wish people would stop with the unfounded shit about what might or might not happen if we do this thing. If anybody has a real and specific problem with it,, please tell me. All my life, I prided myself on my ability to argue both sides of any point intelligently,, why must I be pushed into the position of only being able to argue one that way?
ed

[Jax]

edlee, on Aug 14 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Jax, You have no idea how much I hate doing it this way,, but here goes

Quote

Why couldn't they have started by repealing the Medicare 2yr wait period?

Won't need to,, it's the same as the Public Insurance Option,, except you pay according to what you earn,, earn less,, pay less.

Quote

Medicare/Medicaid could be the plans for Primary Care Doctor visits, prescription drug coverage, and emergency room care for most everyone with a few relatively simple amendments (As long as they paid out. Maybe get some Medicare staffers that did nothing but make sure GP offices were properly trained to use the medicare coding system and maybe even simplify it a bit). Heck, add basic dental and vision into them as well.

The state rehab agencies could take care of the big stuff like life-changing injuries or conditions (which is what they are set up to do).

Same as above,,, even the vision and dental if you get the upper plan level,, And the standardizing of the billing and coding for ALL areas is also in there.

Quote

If they drop their private insurance, for whatever reason, no waiting period to get on Medicare/Medicaid-just log on/come in/call in and sign up.

There is a thirty day grace period in which to pick up the lower level coverage, if you stay with the same insurer it will be a key stroke or two, if another,, a bit more,, but access is required in the bill so you need not do without.

Quote

There does need to be "healthcare quality standard" legislation to go along with all that, but that could be done comparatively easily by itself. Break the whole overhaul into some smaller parts. Work with those parts to craft a well-built system that takes care of every American, without the need for so much pushiness and tension.

The standards are in there,, minimumly based on medicare/medicaid and going up from there. But you know the way our political system works,,, we won't get another shot at this,,, it has to be all at once or the insurance/drug company money will be able to gut the thing till it can't work,,, which is their plan,, even the Republican party leadership seems to be willing to go along with it, just to make sure a Democratic President doesn't succeed. The Dems leadership would do the same thing in their place, I'm sure.
I don't view either parties leadership with a great deal of respect,,,, if any.

I think we've beat this horse about all it will bear. I don't care which side anybody wants to take on the subject,, you all know mine. I just wish people would stop with the unfounded shit about what might or might not happen if we do this thing. If anybody has a real and specific problem with it,, please tell me. All my life, I prided myself on my ability to argue both sides of any point intelligently,, why must I be pushed into the position of only being able to argue one that way?
ed

I think you missed what i meant about the wait. I was referring to the 2 year wait for those who began to receive SSDI under the current system. Repealing it first could have been a good head start to getting more people covered. Particularly helping those who became disabled and did not have private insurance when it happened.

I was merely throwing out ideas as to how they could have gone about this differently (from the beginning) and kept the American people from being quite as upset with it at the same time.

The first real and specific problem I have with the bill is it's inefficiency in affecting positive change at a minimal cost. You tell me how you think it's more efficient in getting people taken care of, and more cost effective to the American people (both at the same time) to do it the govt's way.

Especially considering the hellacious amount of our tax money the dems spent trying to convince us to give up and just let them do what they want (not that our opinions/wants/needs make a damn to them). Add in all the money that the repubs spent advertising against the new healthcare bill. As I said before, if the govt had taken all the money they spent on advertising ($12MILLION for the most recent dems round alone) and instead spent it directly getting insurance for the uninsured (which the president has said is his top priority), there would be a whole lot less people uninsured already. That's math. And it gives a head start to the president's "top priority." Plus, there's the added bonus of people quickly seeing that "Change" that Obama has promised. That alone would iron out at least some the wrinkles caused with the American people. If there are 50million uninsured Americans, and the average premium per person is $8,000/yr, then 1500 individuals could have been insured with that money. How about all those billions they gave GM that GM squandered? Couldn't that money (even just a couple billion dollars of it) have been used to insure Americans? Do you know how many Americans could be insured for $2billion? 250,000 at the average premium cost.

"we won't get another shot at this,,, it has to be all at once or the insurance/drug company money will be able to gut the thing till it can't work"-Do I hear a hint of the dem's party line? (Sorry, couldn't resist. )

First of all, this bill (if it does what the dems say it will) could actually make the drug companies money by providing more people access to those drugs. But if it does end up cutting the profit of drug companies, then it will also effectively cut the research and development of new drugs as well. Which way will it go, I wonder? If the drug companies profit and continue to do their work, great. Especially if it helps more people. If their profits get cut, there will be a lot less stuff made to help us (and I will wonder who they pissed off in the govt).

Of course insurance companies want to gut this bill. From the looks of the bill, it will effectively kill most of them within a decade of it's beginning date. If insurers are not allowed to make money, there won't be any reason for them to continue, and then we will have a single-payer system with no private insurance to choose. Let's think about this for a minute. What do you do when you are limited as to the amount you can charge? You cut down on either quality or labor costs. Anybody who's ever done factory or contract work knows that. Since quality cuts won't be allowed, it will be labor cost that gets cut. That means either job losses or salary cuts, neither of which is a good thing. I'll bet neither of those will apply to the execs until the companies go totally broke. The cuts would happen to the "bottom of the ladder workers." That's how the corporate world works. Then I guess those people could all go to work for the govt if there were enough openings. If not, get ready to pay their unemployment and healthcare with your taxes.

How do you know that passing this bill all at once is the only way to succeed in good healthcare reform? For that matter, how does anyone know? How do you know we won't get another shot? I must admit that I see the need for reform, and I do realize it's too late to fix all the crap we've let them screw us on already. So, yes, we do have to unfortunately work with the lack of good leadership we've let into our govt. The only reason I can see why we wouldn't get another shot is because the dems have pissed off too many voters by trying to shove this down the voters' throats with the "want it or not, this is what you are going to get" attitude. The dems effectively helped the repubs' bid to take over the house in 2010, thereby giving the repubs help in screwing us too. Since it's obvious we can't really eliminate the screwing, we have to try to minimize it, but who can really decide who's gonna screw us how badly?

Do you really think that insurance/drug company money can't gut at least a good chunk of this particular bill just because it's an "all at once" approach?" Who's to say they can't take the "little bit at a time" approach to gutting it even after it's passed? (We shall see.) Maybe they can't, but they can and do/will still cause all kinds of hell with the American people for a long time to come. I bet they couldn't do near as much damage if the govt reformed healthcare in parts. Too bad we'll never find out.

The repubs have already taken 1 brick out of the pile. Section 1233 from HR 3200. I'm waiting to see which brick will be removed next, and by whom.

I'll get to the second real and specific problem after I get some sleep and then re-read that part of the bill to make sure I'm not in the "cranial-rectal inversion" position again.

PS-ed, I truly appreciate all the input you have given. Whether I agree with it all or not, it is still interesting and helps me to see beyond my own fogged view of things. For that, I thank you.

This post has been edited by Jax: 15 August 2009 - 04:25 PM

[edlee]

I'm wandering in the same fog, Jax,, just coming from a different direction, I guess. I've tried to avoid blaming Republicans, as a group,, of letting politics come before good government,, it's some of those in leadership roles that I have a problem with. That's a discussion for another time, tho.

Do I believe that the government can bring down the cost of helathcare??? Yeah,, I'm afraid their is no one else that can in a capitalist society,,, which is what we are. And I don't use the term in any derogatory sense,,, I like it this way.

The problem I have with health care, is that, unlike most other products,, we can't,, for long,, avoid it. Kind of like breathing.

The purpose of the Standards basis,, and the exchange,, is to get the marketplace to force prices down. Hence the huge donations to the RNC for the purpose of fighting against any change. It's not a lot different than a new car,, go for the stripprd down basic model, from any maker,, and the price is about the same,, it's the extras or the upgrades where things get squirrelly.

The government already regulates the makers for basic safety and reliability standards,,, why not make the insurance companies meet specific bottom line standards,, let's say medicare as a baseline?

Here I go,,, making the same,, or similar arguments,,, and I doubt I'll convince you , or anyone else,,, anymore than you will convince me.

We will,, without any doubt,, eventually end up with a single payer system. It's gonna happen. This bill is just a step on the way,, I believe that is all it was ever meant to be,, And knowing that,, I would like to see it done along the ways that have been set down in this bill,, because it seems to me that it was pretty well thought out.

I'll probably be called a socialist,,, I've been called worse,, I can live with that,, and I think my grandchildren will be well served by a single payer system like that of the UK or Canada. Bottom line is,, I like the idea of socialized medicine,,, so sue me.

Jax, It has been a pleasure,, your posts always intrique me,,,,, or I wouldn't read such long monologues,,, In the end, it comes down to,,, Who do you trust? The government,, or Corporate America,,, not a lot to choose from, I know. But what else ya got???
ed

[Jax]

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one that sees the single-payer system as the end goal, with this bill being one of the steps. I'm not going to call you a socialist for wanting one, either. As I've said before, I like the theory of a single-payer system, as long as the application is done as efficiently as possible, and truly works to raise the affordability, accessibility, and quality of healthcare for every American (Which is one of the goals the President stated for this bill) without incurring job losses, huge debts, or large tax increases.

Do I think the govt can bring down healthcare costs? Yes, but not with this particular method of "reform." Do I think the govt could push for better quality healthcare? Yes, but not while also meeting the goals of bringing down costs and not losing jobs in healthcare.

There will be a trade-off. If you don't pay people for the work they spent tons of money getting degrees to do, then the future generations will be less motivated to get those degrees and take those positions. Also, if the medical care centers are not paid enough for their services, then there will be lower quality of care due to insufficient funds for the necessary equipment, treatments, specialists, etc. If you have 1 healthcare company making the regulations that govern all the others, it will eventually crush those others, creating job loss that will be more than what will be picked up by govt hiring. Statistically, it's highly unlikely that the govt will pick up enough of those who lose their jobs at private firms to justify the losses. The govt will already be staffed for their needs.

I watched a good portion of the town hall meeting that Obama held in Grand Junction, CO, and I learned some rather startling information, so please bare with me, as there is a lot of stuff that came to my attention directly from Obama's answers and information. (I really thought it was funny how Obama would get away from the teleprompter and prepared speech/answers, and then start talking like W... Obama rambles worse than I do!!)

Did you ever stop to think about what you do like about the capitalist model of healthcare, or what parts of it should be kept under the new bill that aren't? Here's one of the things I like about the capitalist side of healthcare-TiLite. Just think if there was no profit incentive for TiLite's makers. What would happen? What happens when the govt tells companies like TiLite "We'll pay you 80cents-on-the-dollar?" Have you ever noticed the questions about availability of equipment on here that come from those outside the US? You think govt-run healthcare isn't part of the cause of that problem?

While it is true that you and I are neither one likely to convince the other, I've been doing a bit of figuring with a calculator, and the numbers have begun to sway me more than the actual bill, or any of the things I had previously heard about it from you or anyone else.

It seems as though this bill is very well thought out, but in a different way than it initially appears to be. Without the numbers, the bill is just a bill, a theory (if you will). It sounds good or bad solely based upon the reader's translation. When you punch in the dollar figures, though, it becomes so much more than just what's written in it's pages. When I started using the figures given out by the President in his town hall meeting, I started to see a strange pattern. It is a pattern of talking about cost effectiveness and affordability, but in reality, the numbers Obama gave showed the opposite to be true. It seems, from the President's own numbers, to be nothing more than a bill designed to help bring our country to it's financial death.

The more I look at these numbers and read the CBO Director's statements, the less I like the reform as a whole. The more I input the incredible numbers of zeros after the 9s and 12s and 46.7s, the more I realize that this reform actually may never payoff. It certainly cannot meet those requirements publicly set forth by Obama. It may meet those he's privately given the dems, or the requirements his puppetmasters have given him, but not the goals Obama brags to us about.

This bill falls extremely short of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. How is it cost effective to spend over $900 billion (which, in the town hall meeting, is what the president approximated the bill itself will cost over the next decade) for this reform, to cover 46.7 million people? That's $19,148/uninsured person. That's what they could have used just the bottom-dollar, base cost of the bill itself to cover. Think about that for a second. (Throw in just a few minor ammendments to Medicare/Medicaid code, and the number of yrs-per-person (and people covered) could vastly increase. All without the need for mass panic or 1,018 pages of HR3200 or billions in advertising money.)

Add in the billions (and the total is still rising) in advertising money that has been spent on both sides of this bill. From transportation to town hall meetings, to tv and radio ads, to internet ads, to selling t-shirts and stickers, to trying to meetings with PhRMA, to borrowing from other countries; they've done it all. And it's all being paid for by our tax dollars, and the ever-growing debt we will leave to our future generations.

Think about how many more Americans could already be covered with that money rather than having to wait for coverage to begin through this bill's enactment. That coverage could be 2 years away or more. Another 2yrs that those uninsured people that Obama claims to care so much about insuring will still be uninsured.

Then add in the high-paid corporate exec-types that will be put on govt payroll (and all their special healthcare plans, limos, jets, helicopters, offices, office supplies, staffers, advisers, etc.) for the new commission to oversee healthcare. I'm for creating jobs, but not at the expense of those jobs all being govt jobs that we will all be forced to pay for through what will eventually have to be huge tax increases. (Kind of reminds me of "taxation without representation." I know the reps are their, but are their votes actually representative of their voters needs/desires/best interests?) If we're going to do that, we might as well (again) just put that money into Medicare/Medicaid or straight into the insurance companies.

Is all this spending really all that cost effective? How can it make it cheaper for our future generations? (It would have to be the extremely distant future, if at all.) How can it be honestly said that all of that spending is justified? I think that there is a bit of reading of the transcript of a particular Q&A session that might interest you. It takes place between Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) and Doug Elmendorf (Director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office). Senator Conrad asks the questions, and Mr. Elmendorf's responses are quite the contrary of what the dems have been telling us. Here is the link for you. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds as if even the CBO has a difficult time justifying the reform spending. (I'm not exactly trusting of the news, but a transcript from a Senate Budget Hearing is generally something that would have raised hell if it had been changed in reporting. So I think it's a safe bet that this isn't a Fox-style BS session.)

Also, how about the taxes that we and our future generations will have to pay for the healthcare coverage itself once the bill is passed? I'm just talking about the taxes that will need to be raised in order to pay for the actual medical coverage and medical bills. The basic costs, not the reform part of it. How could that possibly be cost effective when added into the mix of paying for the TRILLIONS of dollars of debt that we incurred under the W administration and the TRILLIONS MORE dollars in debt we have already incurred under the Obama administration? (That's not counting the reform spending that has yet to be done.) Grab a calculator and do some number crunching with me here if you'd like. (I'd suggest one with at least a 20 digit display.) How far down the road is the break-even point going to be? Ever?

When the govt starts charging businesses more taxes to help cover this (which is inevitable, whether anyone believes it or not), isn't it just a backdoor through which they are reaching into the pockets of the employees? If a business gets taxed more and is forced to provide healthcare coverage as well, it won't likely be able to afford to pay everyone, purchase insurance, and still make any profit, without large price increases. So what happens then? Much higher prices for goods, job losses or salary cuts for the workers, and in many cases, business failures. If my dad's payroll taxes increase by much at all, my dad will be forced fire his employees, or to close his store. I'm sure there are plenty of others who will be forced to do the same. That means a rise in unemployment, a rise in govt (tax dollar) dependency, less competition, and more people being covered by taxes while not paying into the system. Does that sound "Good for America?"

How many other jobs are going to be lost or done away with under this reform? You talk about the drug companies and insurance companies gutting the bill. (The PhRMA and Obama have been going back and forth for some time now.) We'll start with the drug companies. How can the drug companies work against themselves that way? The FDA is supposed to be set up to make sure that drugs/treatments are safe. However, there are plenty of meds that are plenty dangerous. The FDA has lately been interfering with the availability of treatments based on their "decision" that those treatments (adult autologous cells) are drugs that will have to be purchased through drug companies. To me, it seems as though the FDA (a part of the federal govt) is on the side of the drug companies. I could be wrong about that, but take a look at some of the things the FDA has done over the last 15yrs. Starting with this recent one (adult autologous cell decision), and working back through the "morning-after pill" approval for 17yr olds, to those silicone-gel breast implants that they ended up being forced to un-approve. Hmmm...

On to the insurance companies. Did you ever stop to think about the number of jobs that those insurance/drug companies provide? What happens to those jobs? More importantly, what happens to those people?

How many people will want to pay for medical school when they can't make any money because the govt is telling doctors "We will only pay you this much?" I heard Obama say that live on tv from the town hall meeting in Grand Junction. He used the figure "80-cents-on-the-dollar" as a reference. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to work for somebody who straight up told me he wasn't going to pay me enough for my work to justify me going to school for it. That is what will eventually happen to me under this president's single-payer system. When I become a full time OTA in 2yrs, I will make somewhere between $39,000/yr and $45,000/yr. When the govt payouts are cut due to overspending, the 80cents-on-the-dollar that the govt will be paying cuts the average OTA salary down to $31,200/yr-$36,000/yr. Not much on which to support a family in the city while attending school to obtain an OT certificate and degree. The average salary for an RN for the first few yrs is about $45,000/yr. If the average RN salary gets reduced to 80% of it's current amount, then it will be down to about $36,000/yr as well.

You see now where this is going, I'm sure, but for those that don't, here it is--With govt regulation of healthcare prices and quality (together), there will also inevitably be a cut in the amount of money that those actually providing that care will be paid (doctors,surgeons, and hospital execs not so much as nurses, nurses aides, therapists, therapy assistants...the "support system" for those doctors and surgeons, if you will). Those people will be forced to spend less because of the salary drops alone. When the taxes increase, those people will be taking home and spending even less. It's quite the declining pattern.

The pres says that the spending on this reform will not put us in anymore debt, and that no family making under $250,000/yr will see any tax increase because of this spending. He also says that jobs will be created, rather than lost, through this reform. That is his justification for this spending. It is mathematically impossible for this spending to not put us in any more debt. Where is the money to pay for it? Is Obama hiding it in his keister? Or is the treasury just going to have a whole lot more bills printed (part of currency devaluation) to cover the costs?

There is no way that healthcare costs can be lowered while healthcare quality is raised, healthcare can be provided to more people, and jobs sustained/created, without putting us in more debt and without raising taxes of those making under $250,000/yr and without lowering incomes of many citizens, all at the same time. (Those promises have been made by Obama. I'll bet you can find them on video on youtube.) It is mathematically impossible. The dems can't do it, the repubs can't do it, they certainly can't do it together when they're constantly fighting each other for party-line sake.

Unless the govt boys and girls are going to tax the hell out of families making $250,000+/yr (Obama's dividing line), and give up their: 1- special healthcare packages (in favor of the govt plan); 2-large portions of their huge salaries; 3- tax exemptions; 4-social security stealing privileges; 5- medical treatments in other countries; 6- extra jets, helicopters, boats, and gas-guzzling limos/sedans/SUVs; 7- large portions of their govt expense accounts; 8- "get out of jail free" cards. That's the only way they could keep the promises made to the American people. If you see a different way, please tell me. I would really like to see it if there is some miraculous way that the promises made about this reform by President Obama can all be kept at once, as he says they can, because the numbers say otherwise. Sounds like he's either mentally challenged, or trying to BS his way through passing this bill for his puppetmasters.Just like the repubs are trying to BS their way through keeping it from getting passed for their puppetmasters. I'm not picking a political party side here, as I hate the whole idea of having only 2 major parties. I'm picking the side of what I see as best for the benefit of the American people, as I'm sure you are doing as well.

What I came to realize, back in 99 when Clinton was President, is that the govt is nothing more than another corporation. They just happen to have the power to change the rules in the marketplace and stop competition. And their CEO is just a bigger puppet than the CEOs of most other companies. In effect, the govt is corporate America, and I don't trust any part of it.

I have to say, I don't see how my wife and I could save anything and get (and eventually give) better care at the same time with the new system. My wife and I would likely be paying more. As it is, we have $20 copays for damn near everything but labs (most of those are free), and MRI/CT/X-ray/etc (which are all under $100 a piece I believe). All that comes out of her check for it each month is $35 and some change. It's been pretty difficult getting BC/BS straightened out, but they're starting to come through. Just takes forever for them to pay. Wonder how slow the govt plan payment will be? Considering the slow payments (if any payments at all) from Medicare, I can only imagine worse.

This post has been edited by Jax: 17 August 2009 - 01:08 AM

[Jax]

I just finished posting, and I looked at yahoo news to find an Associated Press article that got my attention. I thought it might be of interest. Here is the link.

[StillFingers]

Wow, took me awhile to read through your posts/replys, lots of good ideas, thoughts and heartfelt prose...well done.

There are crazies on both sides, as well as good suggestions. It seems to me given the bills developed so far, the caution shown by many on all sides, Jax's last post/link and the not-so-new proposal being considered, namely health insurance co-ops, tells us that many ethical, honest, decent men and women are doing their best to promote change within our health care systems.

We wont get a perfect solution this time around, the economy is to messed up to go single-payer at this time, but lets hope that some change does occur, that we keep an eye on it's progress or lack there of and readdress the faults, fixing those that were wrong or to costly, and adding those missed.

At least this administration is taking an active part in the discussion, is attempting to rally everyone for some change, instead of ignoring this issue as past administrations have or by distracting those that are uninformed, with talk of waiting lines, death panels and euthanasia of the elderly, infirmed and disabled.

We have an articulate, decent, genuine human being as our president. He is listening, rethinking and adjusting his thoughts as the debate warrants. After six/seven months in office we are beginning to see some signs of improvement, lessoning decline and hope that a recovery has begun, despite the diplomatic/economic abyss so "skillfully" created on our behalf and hidden from our sight during the previous 8 yrs.

Give our new president some time to fix this mess; why is it of such import for so many to see him fail...he is not perfect, who of us is...the democrats won this time, democracy in action, lets get busy healing/fixing each other, our support systems, this nation and our place/purpose is this world.

Keep the debate raging folks...

Jerry

PS. I might be a bit off topic here, if so apologies...

This post has been edited by StillFingers: 17 August 2009 - 03:38 AM

[Jax]

Thank you Jerry. I am glad as well that there is some listening finally going on in our govt. It's about time!

I'm also glad to know now that there is at least some chance of compromise between the dems and repubs. It's definitely needed for the best interest of this country. Maybe they should just have a 2 joint minimum in congressional meetings. I'll bet there wouldn't be anywhere near as much bickering.

I liked the idea of the co-ops a while back (I believe the idea came up at some point during Clinton's presidency as well, but was demolished by the congress.). They were just off the table for so long, I almost forgot about them. Then I got sidetracked with HR3200, and you saw where my head went.

I'd personally be interested in cooperative insurance companies. If they work anywhere near as well as the cooperative communications companies I've used here in TX have, we might have a pretty good deal. If we added those co-ops together with removal of the state restrictions on insurance companies, I'll bet it could generate enough competition to drive healthcare insurance costs down a good bit without cutting jobs. Hmmm...

Now I'm trying to figure it in my head. Maybe I should try not to think too much, just for tonight. I don't think it will mix well with the Vicodin.

You put my big concern into one sentence when I wrote way more than most would ever read, and I thank you for that. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I'm not good with simple statements on such issues as this and some others. I'm usually too busy trying to figure out just how badly we're going to get screwed. (Damn paranoia. )

I don't want to see Obama fail. I want him to succeed for the good of this country as a whole. As long as his goal is to do the best for this country, I will always want him to be successful in that goal. I just think he (and everyone including myself) needs a bit of reminder sometimes that "You can't have it all at once. You've got to do the best you can with what's available." You know... A reality check.

I think he's starting to realize just how much change our country can and can't afford to make at one time, both financially and mentally. I appreciate him finally listening to the CBO and the advisers that told him we can't afford certain parts of HR3200. It's a refreshing change from the last administration for sure!

I'm not much for the party-to-party blame game, but I'm still betting that the last administration's policy of "F-you, we're doing/not doing this anyway" is a big part of what caused such a stir over the push for this reform in the first place. And the media always making sure they labeled it a push didn't help either.

This post has been edited by Jax: 17 August 2009 - 06:36 AM