American Politics 19

[potsherds]

It's too easy. Anyone else wanna have a go?

Nah. I mean really, why waste the energy? :huh:

[Lord O' Bones]

Didn't realize you were such a long time fan of mine! In fact, as at best the second most popular 6'5" atheist Republican on the board, I was starting to think I didn't have any fans at all.

Not so much a fan, as one of your brethren (California version.)

But you have to make sense to get my support.

Personally, most of the time I'm going to prefer empowering individual choice rather than throwing more money at a bureaucracy.

Yes! A thousand times yes!

[Annelise]

CBO scores revised House Healthcare bills:

Two of the House's revised healthcare bills would cost $905 billion and $859 billion, respectively, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO scores, which haven't been released officially but were obtained by The Washington Post, reportedly show a marked decrease from the original $1.2 trillion price tag.

The savings are achieved by relying more on state-funded Medicaid services, cutting tax credits for employers to buy insurance or reducing subsidies for individuals to buy their own plans. Both plans include a public option.

The more expensive bill would tie doctor reimbursements to Medicare rates. The cheaper bill would let administrators negotiate compensation rates with doctors.

Though the subsidies would be less generous, the CBO found that the bills would cover more than 95 percent of Americans by 2019.

The score did not analyze the effect of each plan on the deficit.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...eaper-price-tag

I dunno why the CBO wouldn't score the effect of each on the deficit?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Two of the House's revised healthcare bills would cost $905 billion and $859 billion, respectively, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO scores, which haven't been released officially but were obtained by The Washington Post, reportedly show a marked decrease from the original $1.2 trillion price tag.

Where are they planning to get the money?

[Elrostar]

Doctors are only interested in helping patients. Those tests are not really unnecessary.

:rofl:

You're right. Financial incentives never play any role in the decision making process of any doctor, ever. This would in no way explain why we're currently suffering from a serious lack of primary care physicians in the US (who make the least amount of money), whereas the top students from medical school are all going in to dermatology and radiology, which make the most money and have the shortest hours. 40% of Harvard Med school's graduating class this year went into Dermatology... Do you really think this is because Dermatology is where all the great problems in modern medicine are to be found? If so, I have a variety of bridges I would like to sell you.

Incidentally. If people haven't already done so, everyone should listen to (download, or stream) this past week's This American Life episode. They're doing two shows all about health care and its costs. As usual, it's incredible work and is exceptionally illuminating

(For some reason their website is down at the moment. Or I'm not able to access it, in any case. But I would imagine one can still get the podcast from the iTunes store).

[Lord O' Bones]

It's too easy. Anyone else wanna have a go?

Nah. I mean really, why waste the energy? :huh:

If Tormund and Potsie are both done for the day

Then I have nothing to more

offer.

[Annelise]

Here is liberal Paul Krugman touching on what I was saying last thread about mandates.

I get it; there is clearly mistrust/concerns on both ends. Give insurance the mandate it wants, sure, but don't leave it at that in terms of cost control.

[stupidguy]

:rofl:

You're right. Financial incentives never play any role in the decision making process of any doctor, ever. This would in no way explain why we're currently suffering from a serious lack of primary care physicians in the US (who make the least amount of money), whereas the top students from medical school are all going in to dermatology and radiology, which make the most money and have the shortest hours. 40% of Harvard Med school's graduating class this year went into Dermatology... Do you really think this is because Dermatology is where all the great problems in modern medicine are to be found? If so, I have a variety of bridges I would like to sell you.

So what? Just because they make money doesn't make them selfish. All the doctors I know go on mission trips to south america and russia and other less fortunate countries. If there is a shortage of primary care physicians then its beacuse its not challenging enough. Doctor's love challenges. The primary care guys where I live do a great job. My aunt is a doctor and and the patient is her top priority. The money she makes is just a fortunate side efrect of helping people she loves.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Probably taxes on "Cadillac" plans and cuts to Medicare. Also keep in mind that the public option is supposed to be self-sustaining. Companies and individuals have to pay for it.

For some reason I'm drawing a complete blank on what a "cadillac" plan is. Do you really think that you'd be able to get $1 trillion out of medicare?

I was under the impression that there was no meaningful public option in the current bill.

[Swordfish]

Here is liberal Paul Krugman touching on what I was saying last thread about mandates.

Mandates should be a slam dunk if they really are planning to remove the pre-existing filter.

But again, Obama wants single payer. Making it impossible for insurance companies to operate, or driving premiums up further, is an exceptional way to get there, because then you simply swoop in and save the day with single payer, which DOES have a strong mandate, and then you go 'See, we did what the evil insurance companies couldn't do, insure everyone!'.

Unless you think Obama has changed his mind about single payer......

But I see no reason to believe that is the case.

CBO scores revised House Healthcare bills:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...eaper-price-tag

I dunno why the CBO wouldn't score the effect of each on the deficit?

It will be interesting to see the actual report when it's released, but I'm dubious about the tactic of claiming reduced cost if it's really done by passing that cost on to the states.

Still, it's another trillion bucks....

I get it; there is clearly mistrust/concerns on both ends. Give insurance the mandate it wants needs, sure, but don't leave it at that in terms of cost control.

You cannot get rid of the pre existing filters without a mandate.

It's impossible.

[Annelise]

You cannot get rid of the pre existing filters without a mandate.

It's impossible.

I accept that wording. :) The mandate was in the Baucus bill, though why they weakened it I'm not sure... (Trisk?) To me it reads like they grew more uncertain about being able to deliver on making it affordable, which is also a necessity of you're going to institute a mandate.

[Annelise]

Tormund, there is no public option in the Senate Finance bill but there are multiple bills out there that now have to be merged and all of the others contain a public option. So it's a wait and see.

On that topic, seems Pelosi is doing a head count on who will support which option: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63401-pe...e-caucus-stands

The variations [on the public option] include making it a fallback option that could be triggered if insurance isn’t affordable — an idea that is gathering momentum in the Senate — increasing the number of people covered by Medicaid and raising hospital reimbursement rates. The different options were sent to the Congressional Budget Office to see how much each would cost or save.

The results are expected by Tuesday. With numbers in hand, members will be asked to commit, so that leaders can get an idea of what approach will get the 218 Democratic votes needed to pass the bill.

“People will be asked to pick among that smorgasbord in a couple of days,†said Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.).

Pelosi may not get Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a Blue Dog member who made headlines by rejecting a compromise he’d negotiated on a public health insurance option. But on Thursday, Ross opened the door a little to making his vote attainable, suggesting to Democratic leaders that the government-run Medicare program be opened to those without insurance.

Ross also brought the idea to the closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting Thursday.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63401-pe...e-caucus-stands

[Elrostar]

So what? Just because they make money doesn't make them selfish. All the doctors I know go on mission trips to south america and russia and other less fortunate countries. If there is a shortage of primary care physicians then its beacuse its not challenging enough. Doctor's love challenges. The primary care guys where I live do a great job. My aunt is a doctor and and the patient is her top priority. The money she makes is just a fortunate side efrect of helping people she loves.

I'm not saying that being affected by financial concerns makes you selfish. I'm saying it makes you a player in an economic game. It makes you a self-interested party. Are we really to believe that the medical profession is somehow unique in the fact that people working in it are completely unmotivated by economic concerns?

Give me a break. Doctors are not saints. I'm not saying that they're not motivated by a desire to help people; sure they are. But they're motivated by a desire to help people while living a very comfortable lifestyle. Compare their standard of living with that of, for instance, a teacher's aide. Or that of a social worker. Or a counseling psychologist. These people are paid far far less than doctors and yet they're performing as valuable a service to society in many ways. And you can't say that being a social worker is not challenging. It's just that there's a difference between the challenges that pay.... $30k a year, and the ones that pay $200k a year, you know?

I'm sorry if I'm overly cynical about this, but my wife is a doctor and thus I have met an awful lot of people who were going through medical school. Decisions about what kind of medicine to practice are certainly based on what kind of medicine you like, sure, but to say that it's not based on what kind of money you're going to make is just absurd. Ridiculous, even.

I hate to say this, but are you an alt?

[stupidguy]

I'm not saying that being affected by financial concerns makes you selfish. I'm saying it makes you a player in an economic game. It makes you a self-interested party. Are we really to believe that the medical profession is somehow unique in the fact that people working in it are completely unmotivated by economic concerns?

Give me a break. Doctors are not saints. I'm not saying that they're not motivated by a desire to help people; sure they are. But they're motivated by a desire to help people while living a very comfortable lifestyle. Compare their standard of living with that of, for instance, a teacher's aide. Or that of a social worker. Or a counseling psychologist. These people are paid far far less than doctors and yet they're performing as valuable a service to society in many ways. And you can't say that being a social worker is not challenging. It's just that there's a difference between the challenges that pay.... $30k a year, and the ones that pay $200k a year, you know?

I'm sorry if I'm overly cynical about this, but my wife is a doctor and thus I have met an awful lot of people who were going through medical school. Decisions about what kind of medicine to practice are certainly based on what kind of medicine you like, sure, but to say that it's not based on what kind of money you're going to make is just absurd. Ridiculous, even.

I hate to say this, but are you an alt?

Not an alt. I admittidely don't write well and am not the brightest bulb in the light fixture so I can see why people would think I'm messing around.

Why do you think doctor's get paid more then social workers? Why does society value them more? Is there anyway to fix that?

[The Progressive]

Show me a single point of data in the US showing that things are so bad that the doctors (Hippocratic oath be damned!) are conspiring to kill off their patients without consent purely due to financial constraints and you might have a more salient point.

I mostly had gave up on educating rightwing ignoramus who keep sprouting the same debunked talking points, but such an idiotic attack on the British health care system cannot go uncorrected ............. so after a quick google search:

US doctor let patient die to steal his Rolex

Once again, wingnuts are indeed lazy and uninformed.

[Shryke]

As a follow up to this lovely story of an Insurance company no longer insuring anyone in the entire state of New York just to avoid providing service to a single man, I present:

When Peggy Robertson went shopping for a more affordable health insurance plan for her self-employed husband and two young boys, she ran into an unexpected problem: the birth of her son Luke in 2006 by caesarean section. The healthy young mother was shocked when the Golden Rule Insurance company denied her coverage due to the C-Section birth of her son. "I called Golden Rule and they said that if I would get sterilized, they would then be able to offer insurance to me."

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The "cadillac" nickname applies to the most generous insurance plans. Lots of government workers, well-compensated private workers, and union members have these. The tax is one way to bring in money but it's also an attempt to discourage these plans which may lead to excessive health usage.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now that I know I can say with confidence that there is no way you'll wring a trillion bucks out of that and medicare. With the US already 1.5 trillion in the hole, where is it going to come from?

[stupidguy]

Thanks for clearing that up. Now that I know I can say with confidence that there is no way you'll wring a trillion bucks out of that and medicare. With the US already 1.5 trillion in the hole, where is it going to come from?

Raise taxes

Put a wealth cap on people

I think it would actually be pretty easy.

[DanteGabriel]

I'd rather live with a system where there are multiple providers such that they have to keep most of their customers no more unhappy than their competitors do, then one where the single provider just needs to keep 50% of voters happy. Which is going to provide better service to the most people over the long run?

Except the vast majority of us don't have much choice in our providers. We get what health insurance our job supplies us with. If I don't like Blue Cross's coverage, I can't really run off and get a new health insurance provider.

Which is why all you bold free market warriors keep failing to convince anyone on this debate. An actual free market of health insurance companies would be wonderful. But we don't have that. What we really have is a hodgepodge of feudal robber-barons doing their best to maximize their profits on a mostly captive populace.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

The "cadillac" nickname applies to the most generous insurance plans. Lots of government workers, well-compensated private workers, and union members have these. The tax is one way to bring in money but it's also an attempt to discourage these plans which may lead to excessive health usage.

Aren't some Union heavy States exempted from this tax? I doubt taxing Union Plans would go over well in the Blue State base of the Democratic party.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25466-D...healthcare-bill