[Kimberley G]

Just visited with colleague who is a healthcare expert. He was in DC all last week meeting with our senators as well as other state's senators. The public option term is being phased out because of the public outcry and replaced with the term "consumer option". Sounds nice, huh?

The newest proposal and the one Reid is pushing will allow state's an opt out. That means that if they want to skip the fedreally funded "consumer option" then they can do so. But the the opt out is really just a threat. Take hospitals for instance. Medi-(fill in the blank) patients treated by a hospital will be reimbursed at only 50% of the approved cost to government plans (fee schedule). If the patient is not readmitted within 30 days, then the feds would pay the remainder of the 50% bill. Keep in mind that the "medi" reimbursements is significantly lower than the actual costs. If for some reason the person is readmitted to the hospital, the 2nd 50% is forever forfeited. The concept is that it will force better care from the providers. But it is an "all or none" policy. If a fellow has a kidney stone and is hospitalized but then 20 days later is readmitted because of a gunshot wound, the first 50% is the only payment the hospital would receive. The hospital looses the 2nd 50% payment for the first service and is not paid one penny on the 2nd. Screwed up, you betcha!

Anyhow, rumor has it on the Hill that if GBO can come back with an estimated cost of $800 Billion with a deficit-neutral plan, it will pass. If it over the $800 B threshold, it won't. The Dems are currently assessing who is up for re-election to determine who it can permit to defect to vote against it so that the constituents will not vote them out of office.

I truly love meeting with this guy each time he is in the region. But I'm always stinking mad after he leaves because the folks on the Hill really are clueless and really don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves.

[David]

Kimberley G, on 28 October 2009 - 06:48 PM, said:

the folks on the Hill really are clueless and really don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves.

I agree!

Clueless, over paid, no backbone, pad my pocket, take my health insurance for life no good son of dogs.

[Quantum]

Those darn constituents. Here they go again. Now they want to have the same coverage that members of congress have. I mean, what's wrong with the very simple republican health plan: Don't get sick, and if you get sick, die quickly.

[David]

Yes, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

[Don M]

How about an insurance plan that just takes care of you if something goes wrong??? What we have now is a health payment plan. Most Americans don't think they should have to pay for anything medical. Get rid of the mandated coverages. I don't need to cover drug treatment, baldness, fertility, blisters on my big toe. The individual should cover their own shots, pre-emptive care, and screening tests.

[Southbound]

IMHO it is just another unfunded benifit that the government wants to throw out there ... I think that we have enogh of these already and would much rather see a serious effort to control the deficit. I heard that while the NJ, NY, and VA elections were happening Obama entertained himself by watching a documentry on ... OBAMA

A turd by any other name still stinks.


Charlie

[Quantum]

Southbound, on 05 November 2009 - 03:22 PM, said:

IMHO it is just another unfunded benifit that the government wants to throw out there ...

Actually, recent unfunded mandates were the "No child left behind" act and the "Prescription drug benefit" from the previous administration. Granted that even in the Clinton years there were unfunded mandates pushed through.

However, the health care proposal currently put forth by the democrats is indeed funded. Don't take my word for it, the AARP and the AMA endorse the Baucus bill and the AARP mentions the funding aspect as part of their endorsement:
http://bulletin.aarp...re_reform7.html

Even Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, stated that the Baucus bill creates a more affordable health care system.

[Southbound]

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will cost $829 billion over 10 years and somehow reduce the federal budget deficit over the same time. But CBO's calculations are a tad optimistic – to say the least.

For example, the CBO assumed that Congress would actually follow through on the bill's intention to cut doctor-reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid patients by 25 percent in 2011. History suggests that this is unlikely, as doctors have successfully lobbied Congress year after year to relent on such cuts.

In 1997, Congress established a complex formula to automatically adjust Medicare payments to physicians to keep costs down. Between 1997 and 2001, the economy grew faster than Medicare payments, so there was no problem. Then the economy slowed, and the formula called for payment cuts. In 2002, a small cut took effect. Every year since, Congress has stepped in to block cuts for the current year and push them off to "next year."

The 4.4 percent cut Congress skipped in 2003 became a 5.1 percent cut in 2007. That became a 10.6 percent cut this year – which, of course, didn't happen. Next year, the spending cut is set to be 21 percent. If you believe that cut will happen, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Such is the danger of a new entitlement like the one in Baucus' plan – the beneficiaries are in the present, while future generations get saddled with the bill.


http://candicemiller.../pdf/hr3200.pdf (warning this is a BIG pdf)


Charlie

[Quantum]

Southbound, on 07 November 2009 - 12:58 AM, said:

Such is the danger of a new entitlement like the one in Baucus' plan – the beneficiaries are in the present, while future generations get saddled with the bill.


Charlie

Point taken, this is a major initiative which is why I'd argue it hasn't been done in previous administrations. Also a quick note that the beneficiaries of health reform will be future generations as well. As far as the program being recoverable, I think that any program implemented by government that projects incoming funding to pay for itself has to use future projections to make estimates. There's no other way to make these calculations.

Now, there are other programs implemented by government which make no claims at reaching financial breakeven, e.g. defense system investing, space exploration, institutes of health, national labs. In these cases the government uses strategic criteria as to the future of the country to justify the need for such programs. In other words, it is strategically a good idea for the country to invest in space launch technology or vaccine research.

So given that, investment in improving the health system of the country makes enormous sense to me. This is after all an incentive to keep the population healthy and productive from an economical angle. The program also seeks to improve the current health care cost's upward spiral that burdens businesses, another economical angle. Apart from that and of paramount importance IMHO is the very strong argument from the humanistic side that this is the right thing to do.

[Kimberley G]

Charlie -- I don't think I've really ever read the word "turd" in print! LMAO.... he's a really big turd.

The problem isn't health care at all. It's health insurance. We're trying to fix the wrong problem. There was a proposal in one of the bills that would mandate all providers use 1 particular from to process insurance claims. Right now, there are about 3000 different forms and each has a different specialist and filing procedures. The idea was to go to a lean type system that everyone used the same form and eliminated all the waste. Billions of dollars in waste. Blue Cross is one of the major carriers who got up in arms over this. The reason? Only 1 of the major carriers would end up with ALL the business. So the 3 largest insurance provicers lobbied the goverment and the proposal was changed to have 3 different forms and procedures. Go figure! Too many fingers in the pie is what gets us messed up in the first place.

If we could just run government like a private business.... The same is true for all facets of government actually. Too many people sitting around and not enough work getting done. Not believe me? Go to the DMV for your car tags! The last time I was in there a worker was clipping her toenails. I was floored. If she'd have worked for me, she'd have been fired. Even in the university setting there is too much waste!

[Quantum]

Kimberley G, on 07 November 2009 - 10:51 AM, said:

...
If we could just run government like a private business.... The same is true for all facets of government actually.

I googled what LMAO stands for and I was lol.

The only point I'd like to make here is about the belief in the wisdom of private business. Private business is in it to make money period. That's the name of the game. Private business practices applied to government are not a panacea, though some would make sense and could improve things no doubt.

So maybe the better way to phrase this is to establish measurable metrics that can be enforced, as well as provide the firing ability similar to private business (subject to HR department appeals ), also would need to implement incentives for performance and service. The culture shift would probably be the most challenging aspect.

All right, that one's solved.. next.

[David]

http://www.cbsnews.c...in5484246.shtml


Lieberman: Public Option Is "Wrong"
"I'm all for health care reform," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We have a system that needs fixing. But we've got some more urgent problems than that, and the first most urgent is to fix our economy, to get at creating jobs again."

Lieberman told moderator Bob Schieffer that the public option "came out of nowhere," and said it was not necessary to achieve what he described as the two goals of health reform: "Make health insurance more affordable, and to extend it to people who don't have it now.

"The public option I think was raised in the last year by people who really want to have a government-controlled health insurance system. That's their right. I think they're wrong.

"But it's not necessary - as President Obama has said over and over again - to achieve the goals that he has. So I hope it's not in there at the end" he told Schieffer.

The senator said that he would filibuster any legislation including a public option.

"Yes. Yes, I'm not going to filibuster to stop the debate on health care reform from beginning because I want to have that debate. I want to have health care reform. I want to be able to say, yes, there are so many good things we can do to make health insurance more affordable and to extend it to people who don't have it now," he told Schieffer.

"There're so many good things we can do to make health insurance more affordable and to extend it to people who don't have it now, but I feel so strongly about the creation of another government health insurance entitlement, of the government going into the health insurance business, I think it's such a mistake that I would use the power I have as a single Senator to stop a final vote."

"But wouldn't that mean that you might wind up with nothing instead of something?" asked Schieffer.

"Yeah, but I'd say to the people who are all of a sudden making the public option a government health insurance company the litmus test here, they're stopping us from getting something done."

[David]

Not a fan of this guy but when he's taking my side of things you know I've got to be right!

[08087]

Trying as they do to get things passed during the heat of the night tells you all too much.

Just like the Patriot act under Bush the bail out under Bush/Obama and now the new health care reform act it's all the same bundle of poop.

As I read it you will be forced to participate in this new plan if your company does not supply health coverage. By forced participation they mean this. your premium will be based upon your household income. The example I was given was a family that brings in 100K per yr. will pay 20% of there net adjusted income. I'm figuring this would total about 13K then. Not bad for a family of 4 but what quality of service will you actually get remains to be seen.

If a family of 4 that earns 40K and brings home 30K they would be paying about 17% of there gross adjusted income for the same benefit plan. Which totals about $5,100.

Now here's the kicker, if you choose not to participate the government will fine you the amount THEY SAY YOU OWE and add a little something extra on for good measure.

If you still do not pay your fair share they will JAIL YOU!

Holy crap BATMAN! Jail me? Yes Robin, JAIL YOU!

This post has been edited by David: 08 November 2009 - 09:04 PM
Reason for edit:: poor choice of words

[David]

08087, on 08 November 2009 - 07:18 PM, said:

Trying as they do to get things passed during the heat of the night tells you all too much.

Just like the Patriot act under Bush the bail out under Bush/Obama and now the new health care reform act it's all the same bundle of poop.

As I read it you will be forced to participate in this new plan if your company does not supply health coverage. By forced participation they mean this. your premium will be based upon your household income. The example I was given was a family that brings in 100K per yr. will pay 20% of there net adjusted income. I'm figuring this would total about 13K then. Not bad for a family of 4 but what quality of service will you actually get remains to be seen.

If a family of 4 that earns 40K and brings home 30K they would be paying about 17% of there gross adjusted income for the same benefit plan. Which totals about $5,100.

Now here's the kicker, if you choose not to participate the government will fine you the amount THEY SAY YOU OWE and add a little something extra on for good measure.

If you still do not pay your fair share they will JAIL YOU!

Holy Shit BATMAN! Jail me? Yes Robin, JAIL YOU!

I responde to your post with a post of my own. take this kind sir!

As suspected this is only the tip of the iceburg, the plan is to undermind many of the rights we currently enjoy but seem all to willing to simply toss away.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

check out the link too

Goodbye Constitution, hello dictatorship.
It's that serious.


Subject: Constitutional Attorney's Review of ObamaCare Legislation - A Must Read!

The following comment is from Michael Connelly of Carrollton, Texas, a retired attorney and constitutional law instructor, who states that he, having read the entire health care bill, felt compelled to make some public comments, not about the Obama-Care health bill, but about its impact upon our Constitution.

Apparently the issue is a far broader matter than just health care reform. All of us need to sit up and pay attention to what congress and Obama are about to do to us, because, once this sort of legislation is passed and signed, it may well be irreversible!!!!!!

To read more of his thoughts, go to Mr. Connelly's website at: http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE BILLS

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of Government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

http://www.archives....transcript.html
Read at least the cites I have made, then you can see exactly what we are about to have taken away from us. If you value your freedom, best you get busy now!
Michael Connelly, Retired Attorney & Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

__________________

[Southbound]

I agree that the insurance companies need strong government oversite or the consumer will get hosed. But I do not think that the government needs to run the healthcare system and that is what this current bill will allow tham to do.


I think that Congress should start over ....



Charlie

[Quantum]

Just to clarify a bit, Lierberman is taking such an inflexible stand because he's from Connecticut, the insurance industry's back yard. To expect different would be just like expecting Kay Bailey or Cornyn to vote against oil industry interests. It ain't gonna happen.

As far as starting over after all the compromising work that has gone on to get the bill this far, I'm thinking it would be effectively killed. What's wrong with that? last time this issue was brought up was in the mid 90s and it was shot down w/very similar arguments. In the last 12 years or so the situation has definitely worsened and to put this off yet again makes no sense.

Get it done now and move on.

[David]

Quantum, on 10 November 2009 - 09:53 AM, said:

In the last 12 years or so the situation has definitely worsened and to put this off yet again makes no sense.

Get it done now and move on.

I can't even think of how to reply to this lack of logic! Get it done and move on? You've got to be kidding me. Make a bad situation worse just for the sake of getting it done?

I've got some personal business to take care of at the moment but will get back to this soon enough.

God help us if we apply this train of thought to our worldly problems.

[David]

Quantum, on 10 November 2009 - 09:53 AM, said:

Just to clarify a bit, Lierberman is taking such an inflexible stand because he's from Connecticut, the insurance industry's back yard. To expect different would be just like expecting Kay Bailey or Cornyn to vote against oil industry interests. It ain't gonna happen.

As far as starting over after all the compromising work that has gone on to get the bill this far, I'm thinking it would be effectively killed. What's wrong with that? last time this issue was brought up was in the mid 90s and it was shot down w/very similar arguments. In the last 12 years or so the situation has definitely worsened and to put this off yet again makes no sense.

Get it done now and move on.

Quantum I've always liked reading your responses, they usually are well thought out and constructive in approach. I don't always find myself agreeing with you but I can see your point and respect your views.

However (BUT) this is by far the worst response you have ever given any topic of conversation.

The government cronies have come up with a Russian roulette solution and you say pull the trigger? Why would I put a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger without knowledge of where the bullet is? Why would I place a gun at any time to my head?

The fact that they are forcing this down our throats is reason enough to hold back.

Let me give you this analogy. 3 men grab you on the street and tell you to come with them and do it quietly. Do you go or do you protest?

The time to protest is never better then before they have you where they want you. Allow them to get you into their waiting van and your chances of coming out OK have just been severely cut. Protest on the street where you are and at least someone may come to your aid or get a plate number as they drag you off kicking and screaming.

My friend we are on different ends of the political spectrum, but that doesn't make either one of us bad or wrong, it only means we stand up for what we believe is right.

How is forcing a pill down the throat of the American people a good thing? If it were so good for us they would release the proposal in easy simple to read words and hold it up as a model for all the world to see.

This is far from the case! It is one of the finest examples of back door politics I have even seen.

For every one that does not call the USA home, beware of wolves promising you honey and lemon for your tea, you might wind up with a brick over your head.

As the world looks on and thinks of one day modeling there actions after that of the leader of the fee world you may find yourself having to swallow a very big pill!

Hold you elected officials accountable at all costs. Cause if you don’t it will cost you in the end for sure!

[Quantum]

David, on 11 November 2009 - 12:23 AM, said:

...
The government cronies have come up with a Russian roulette solution and you say pull the trigger? Why would I put a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger without knowledge of where the bullet is? Why would I place a gun at any time to my head?

The fact that they are forcing this down our throats is reason enough to hold back.

How is forcing a pill down the throat of the American people a good thing? If it were so good for us they would release the proposal in easy simple to read words and hold it up as a model for all the world to see.

...

For every one that does not call the USA home, beware of wolves promising you honey and lemon for your tea, you might wind up with a brick over your head.

As the world looks on and thinks of one day modeling there actions after that of the leader of the fee world you may find yourself having to swallow a very big pill!

...

Hold you elected officials accountable at all costs. Cause if you don’t it will cost you in the end for sure!

David,
Always a pleasure. So let's start. If your argument is to oppose anything the government tries to pass on your behalf as them "shoving a pill down your throat" then you would have likely opposed everything your government has done starting w/the revolutionary war, past the response to Pearl Harbor, all the way to today (pick your recent bill). That's fine. After all it's your right. If I could indulge w/mine I'd consider this demagoguery typical of an obstructionist and/or a reactionary. BTW, these are not necessarily good traits in a representative democracy.

The gun to the head playing russian roulette.. no comment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt due to the various conversations we've had in the past and call that one a joke. Though it does show your age and mine since you seem to be drawing from "The Deer Hunter".

As far where to find easy to read language for the health reform bill.. ok.. yet again:
http://www.whitehous...er-protections/

Regarding other countries following the US example in health care, I believe that much of the industrialized world already has addressed that problem.

Not to end in discord, as we never could, let me say that we both agree on your last point. Actually I'd go further. It is not only your right but your responsibility to hold your elected officials accountable. This is why the republicans are in such a mess now that the true leadership of the party is personified by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. It gives me no pleasure to say that believe me since I believe the 2 party system needs, well a second party. An opposition one at that.

Come to think of it, since they lost the election the republicans seem to be behaving like the Monty Python argument skit. Complete with profit motive! Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=teMlv3ripSM

Quantum

PS: Monty was originally Canadian and not British. Though he apparently changed his citizenship after watching a coconut laden african swallow. A common missaprehension.