Health care shmelf care

The greatest summary of how to reform health care that I've seen:

What part of NO does this guy understand.
The vast majority of the population is happy with their health care. Why must he break what is largely not broken.
Suggested improvements...
Loosen regulations on medical insurance companies that would allow them to better market toward individual clients.
Allow churches, synagogues and mosques to purchase into group medical insurance plans.
Enact tort reform, to stop frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals.
Open the medical insurance market up to interstate and international competition.
Shorten patent times on life-saving prescription drugs to allow the sale of generics more quickly.
Open the pharmaceutical market up to international competition.
Enable tax reform, allowing families more take-home-pay which can be used for medical insurance.


From here.

If one wants to know why Harry Reid is so eager with his new proposal, you should read this.  It may shock you!

How good is Sen. Max Baucus's health reform bill? So good that Democrats have made sure some of the most costly provisions don't apply to their own states.

The Senate Finance Committee is gearing up for a final vote next week, and Chairman Baucus now appears to have the Democratic votes to pass his bill. Getting this far has of course meant cutting deals, and those deals, it turns out, are illuminating. The senators are all for imposing "reform" on the nation, so long as it doesn't disadvantage their constituents.


View Full Image
pw1009
Getty Images

Sens. Harry Reid (Nevada) and Charles Schumer (New York) are among those inserting goodies for their states.
pw1009
pw1009

A central feature of the Baucus bill is the vast expansion of state Medicaid programs. This is necessary, we are told, to cover more of the nation's uninsured. The provision has angered governors, since the federal government will cover only part of the expansion and stick fiscally strapped states with an additional $37 billion in costs. The "states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities," griped Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.

Poor Mr. Strickland. If only he lived in . . . Nevada! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is worried about losing his seat next year, worked out a deal by which the federal government will pay all of his home state's additional Medicaid expenses for the next five years. Under the majority leader's very special formula, only three other states—Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan—qualify for this perk, on the grounds, as Mr. Reid put it recently on the Senate floor, that they "are suffering more than most."

Tell that to Mr. Strickland, who is still trying to figure out how to close an $850 million budget hole, in a state with near 11% unemployment. And tell it to Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who quipped: "I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, in California and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more taxes so that Nevadans can pay less taxes."

To pay the bill for his version of ObamaCare, Mr. Baucus's legislation would tax high-value insurance plans—a 40% tax on plans that cost more than $21,000 a year. Democrats argue it is reform to make those who can afford "luxury" health care chip in for those who can't afford any at all.

That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.

Mr. Baucus will also pay for his bill by socking it to pharmaceutical companies, on the principle that drug companies are filthy rich and should have to contribute to health care. The view is a bit different in New Jersey. The state's Web site boasts it is the "global epicenter" of the drug industry, where "15 of the world's 20 largest pharmaceutical companies have major facilities." And Sen. Bob Menendez, of the Garden State, seems concerned that his home-state employers are going to struggle to both pay their federal liabilities and to continue to grow and innovate. Thus Mr. Menendez's quiet deal for a $1 billion tax credit for companies investing in drug R&D.

The Baucus bill, we are assured by many Dems, will successfully "bend down" the health-care cost curve. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow isn't counting on it when it comes to her constituents. She and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry included $5 billion in the bill for a reinsurance program designed to defray the medical costs of union members.

"This will help our employers, whether it's the auto industry or whether it's other industries, be able to lower their costs for early retirees," said Ms. Stabenow. She is apparently unaware that this is what the broader bill is supposed to do, even without $5 billion in union slush money.

So, health-care "reform" is good, smart and necessary, so long as it isn't fully applied to the states of the senators who are pushing it. The Democrats' growing problem is that somebody is ultimately going to have to pay, and Mr. Reid's bad example has given every one the same idea. "If Colorado has a fair claim on being treated the same way Nevada has been, of course we're going to ask to have that kind of treatment," promised Sen. Mark Udall, upon news of the Reid deal.

Most senators are saving up their special state demands for when the bill hits the Senate floor. At that point, we'll get an even better idea of how much health-care change Democrats truly believe in.
 
Genghis Khan said:

Is there any further explanation about your article, cmpoet, such as where the numbers come from?

The numbers for what percentage wasted money is attributed to what was researched by Thomson Reuters, an international research service for business.  They seem well-regarded.  I don't know who might have paid for the research report by them, but the report did not leave me feeling surprised in the least.  Having dealt with the health care system in the US, it seemed like time and money is wasted trying to figure out the paperwork, the correct entity to bill for whatever it is, and that concern overrides all other concerns including the health of the patient.

That's disappointing that there is just as much pork barrel massage going on in Canada as in the US.  I can't imagine what that would have been like here -- worse I suppose.

It's astonishing to me that the biggest reason health care reform cannot get anywhere near accomplished in a meaningful way is because 'reform' in and of itself, does not make anybody any money.  And if you can't make money from it, a lot of people can't see that it's necessary.  They don't get what the hurry is to insure everyone.

It's funny but Republicans, who are usually stalwart, biblethumping Conservatives, usually Creationists all, suddenly become Darwinists when it comes to the holy trinity of capitalism, health care, and corporate rights.

I may be off topic and wandering -- but has anyone seen the documentary called Sicko by Michael Moore?
 
jmpoet said:
...It's funny but Republicans, who are usually stalwart, biblethumping Conservatives, usually Creationists all...

Now that's not fair. I detest most Republicans, and there are creationists among them, but to say they're all creationists or even Bible-thumpers is just plain false.

The biggest problem in modern US politics is not any single issue, or group of issues, but the poison climate in which each party tries to vilify the other. Sure, it's been that way (to some extent) as long as politics have existed - but for a few years there's been a growing consensus that it's worse now than ever before. It leads to close-mindedness, which leads to hate-filled stagnation.

Combat your opposition on fact and principle - two areas where the Republican party is mostly deficient. But don't lie about your opponent; it destroys all your credibility.

jmpoet, I realize you probably weren't intentionally lying - you were exaggerating, perhaps. But please be more careful. Excessive partisanship helps no one.
 
I don't find it such an unrealistic view. Actually jmpoet doesn't close her eyes for what's going wrong in society, in her opinion. And she's one of the few who dares to ventilate that overhere. Mostly in this topic (and the USA politics topic), people merely express negative opinions about politicians (or doctors or insurance companies). That's easy.

It's good to see someone who's doing more than just that. Yes: This sharp edge can bring us closer to difference of opinion. But if everyone would agree and think exactly the same, now wouldn't that be a dull discussion?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think she literally meant that they're all Creationists (though their numbers are huge, and every year less people in the USA believe in Darwin). I interpret it like this: The ones who are --> now suddenly become ......
 
Foro, do you have stats that back up that last statement?  I know there are both creationists and evolutionists in the States, but I never have heard that more people beleive in creation every year.  It seems that, from what I had read last spring, the rate stayed around the same. 

And Reumeren, don't feel that the American 'mainstream' rejects science.  There will be some loud people out there that 'reject' it, but there are plenty of 'mainstream' Americans that believe in evolution.  There have to be plenty of Catholics in Europe, and, last time I checked, the Catholic church still believed in creation. 
 
Well, it probably should.  What people tend to forget (and this was discussed back before the election) is that the USA isn't made up of two groups, the 'left' and the 'right'; it is really three.  The 'center' is the largest one, and the one that sways the difference.  Everyone thought that the country was all 'right wing' when Bush got elected... but it was just the sway of the center.  The bulk of the country isn't as conservative as one would believe.  Oh, and don't watch Faux...,erm, FOX news.
 
Wasted CLV said:
Foro, do you have stats that back up that last statement?  I know there are both creationists and evolutionists in the States, but I never have heard that more people beleive in creation every year.

In a documentary I heard that in the USA less people believe in Darwin's evolution theory, every year. 

Just did some searching and I found a 2009 poll which says 39% believes in it, and two years ago the same poll had the figure of 49%.

If interested, read this article which shows how welcome this subject is in the USA.

Excerpt:

... But US distributors have turned down the film that could cause uproar in a country that, on the whole, dismisses scientific theories of the way we evolved.

Christian film review website Movieguide.org described Darwin as 'a racist, a bigot and a 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder.'

The site also stated that his 'half-baked theory' influenced Adolf Hitler and led to 'atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and generic engineering.'

Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.

'That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing,' he said.

'The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.

'It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days.

'It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.
...
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Now that's not fair. I detest most Republicans, and there are creationists among them, but to say they're all creationists or even Bible-thumpers is just plain false.

Combat your opposition on fact and principle - two areas where the Republican party is mostly deficient. But don't lie about your opponent; it destroys all your credibility.

jmpoet, I realize you probably weren't intentionally lying - you were exaggerating, perhaps. But please be more careful. Excessive partisanship helps no one.

Actually if you look at what I said, SMX, you'll see that I said, and I quote myself, "USUALLY . . .  bible thumping" etc.  Key word there, usual.

Although, given their constituency, I doubt that any Republican could get elected if he declared himself or herself an atheist.  That doesn't SEEM to be a great selling point to that crowd.  Although there's always some exception.

I do though try to use terms that put a condition on what I'm saying, words like 'usual' or 'seems like'.  That way I don't get called a liar for saying Republicans are ALL bible-thumping rednecks.

Of course I didn't say Republicans were all of them SINCERE bible-thumpers -- now that would be a lie!!  :P 

And while proof is necessary, so is some editorializing.  The way to get around that is to do some editorializing right back, but calling someone a liar for writing an opinion-based post doesn't make sense.  It's an opinion.  You can't lie about your opinion unless you are silent.  (I'm editorializing again!)  :innocent:

It should help my case here that I meant this in a very sardonic kind of a way, but maybe bible-thumping's not as funny a term as it used to be -- way back in the 80's when people calling themselves the moral majority, a rather uptight crowd basing their holier-than-thou attitudes on the precepts of the most conservative Christian teachings, burned Maiden albums!

Forostar said:
I don't find it such an unrealistic view. Actually jmpoet doesn't close her eyes for what's going wrong in society, in her opinion. And she's one of the few who dares to ventilate that overhere. Mostly in this topic (and the USA politics topic), people merely express negative opinions about politicians (or doctors or insurance companies). That's easy.

Thanks for your support, Forostar.  I appreciate it. 
 
Ok, so how about this statistic:  2009, 25% do not believe in evolution.  2007, 48% do not believe in evolution.  So, that is a 23% swing away from lack of beliefe in evolution.  So, from that, I could say that in 07, there were more creationists than in 2009.  See, same poll that you looked at.  It doesn't say that more people believe in creation, it says that they don't know, don't care, or don't give a shit. 
 
Yeah there are many things to be found in these polls.

Check this out:
There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
 
The thing is this: the Christian Right has basically adopted the Republican party.  But, remember that the Republican party has not exactly adopted the Christian Right.  But, I can believe in those numbers-- i'll check out that poll.
 
Wasted CLV said:
Ok, so how about this statistic:  2009, 25% do not believe in evolution.  2007, 48% do not believe in evolution.  So, that is a 23% swing away from lack of beliefe in evolution.  So, from that, I could say that in 07, there were more creationists than in 2009.  See, same poll that you looked at.  It doesn't say that more people believe in creation, it says that they don't know, don't care, or don't give a shit. 

Since we're on this topic already, I thought I'd add my two cents.  Canadians have had a similar poll.  Notice that while 59% of Canadians believe in evolution, 42% of Canadians believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.  In Canada it sounds like there is more tolerance toward science and tolerance in opinion on the matter, but still heck of a lot of ignorance.

EDIT: So one may draw a conclusion that the main difference between USA and Canada on human evolution opinion is not intelligent background knowledge, but rather toleration on differences of opinion.

Europeans are not free of Creationism either, though they're less likely to give such non-sense a voice in public education.
Forostar said:
Yeah there are many things to be found in these polls.

Check this out:
There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

The number for independents and Democrats is still high.
 
Back
Top