Are you Pro-Health Care But Anti-HR 3200/Government Run Care? Sound off

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I just want to see if i'm all alone here or what.

It seems like the majority of people in this forum are either Party Line Talking Point Parrots or legitimate party zealots.


In all the health care threads I keep telling people I want our system, especially the coverage, to be much better as I dont think we have adequate coverage. I am also stating that after reading this bill I can not support it as it will cause way too many drastic changes to the care side of the equation.

On top of that I just dont trust the same congress and general govt that brought us Iraq, a poorly funded cash for clunkers, dispicable defecit spending that will destroy our wealth, have been unable to fund social security, and more. I just dont understand how people can trust these same nitwits with an 1100 page monstrosity like the current health care bill.


So Really i'm just hoping i'm not all alone pissing in the wind here with this one. Anyone else have a similar feeling on this?

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. Just kill this bill, which is only in formative stage at present, and wait another decade or two for another try. No way, Jose. We have been down that road before. Just another tactic to preserve the billions that the insurance companies are robbing the working stiff of every year. Like this paragon of Republican virtue;

Rick Scott: Health Care Enemy #1 | Orange Juice! Politics For The Rest Of Us.

Meet the man behind the health care chaos – Rick Scott. Just your average multi-millionaire medicare fraudster who was responsible for $1.7 BILLION Dollars in civil suit claims and fines. Not content to sit on the sidelines during this health care reform bill, he has pledged to spend over $20 million dollars to defeat Obama. Scott is a guy who totally scammed the system over a long period of time, and who now claims that he is afraid that Obama might mess up health care. Sit down, Mr. Scott. You are totally disingenuous! In order to get his dirty work done in thwarting honest decisions regarding our nation’s health care, he is heading up the group, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR) which is spending tens of millions of dollars in advertising lies and fraud. IMO, Rick Scott is the man who best embodies the spirit of the current conservative opposition.

One of Scott’s most recent projects has been linked to a company which both Iran and Saudi Arabia use to enforce internet censorship.

Scott sits on the board of Secure Computing. Media Matters released a document detailing Scott’s links to the internet monitoring company, which has been used by these regimes in order to suppress internet communication. Reporters Without Borders, in 2001, produced a report which stated: “According to Secure Computing, this software makes it possible to block millions of websites in over 60 categories. It is therefore easy for the Iranian government to block websites for political reasons. His name might not be a familiar one, but this guy is one busy boy. More at Wikipedia

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This bill in its CURRENT forum needs to be killed and they need to start over taking baby steps.

One aspect at a time, health care is too important to rush through with a monster bill that the congress hasn't even read themselves.

Lets start with coverage. Lets get people covered then we can get into the dozens of alterations to care and the availability of care that are in the Bill.

Have you read it yet?

And please don't regurgitate talking points in the thread if you can help yourself.

 

[Vanquish]

I've read almost all of it, line by line. And I have to say that there's only one section that bothers me.

It's Section 102.

Most of the neo-con fear-mongering stuff is easily disproven...

1. death panels - there are no death panels
2. stealing money straight out of our bank accounts - those provisions are for provider transactions NOT consumer transactions

But 102 definitely sounds like a funnel. If your insurance policy changes in any way whatsoever you're shifted to the Public Option?

The whole thing doesn't need to be scrapped. That's not the answer. Just from a practical point of view, there's more good than bad in the thing so that would be a waste...and you'd probably get a lot of the same verbiage anyway.

But I don't like the Section 102 funnel. I wish someone would call Obama on that during one of these Town Halls.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

yeah i fell for your #2 for a few days. Then in another thread I made a few members went through it together with me and I found out that what you said about bank accounts is true, THANK GOD.

And I even made a thread to try and disprove the death panel thing where I quoted the entire section that the "death panel" talk was based on and challenged people to show me where it sets up death panels. No one succeeded.


There is way too much red tape in the bill for me, thats half the problem with our current system is all the waste and red tape and as I read the bill it seems we are making this problem bigger not smaller.

Thank you very much for your useful response to my thread vanquish

 

[goldcatt]

I'm on the fence about H.R. 3200 right now. There are things in it I like, but others (like Section 102 that you point out, Vanquish) that need fixing. I'm also interested in some of the alternate ideas floating around the Senate, like establishing private not-for-profit coops, that aren't yet on paper. Perhaps the two can be incorporated to give both a new private option for those who distrust a government plan and a public one for those who want it?

My biggest concern is I don't see enough to address costs. I want to see negotiation of drug prices, a huge factor in spiraling health care costs. I want to see some limited tort reform focused on reducing or eliminating defensive medicine while still allowing access to court for legitimate claims. I'd like to see interstate competition among private insurers IF it is done in a way that won't bring a rush to the bottom moving all insurers to the state with the least regulation. Without addressing costs it's meaningless.

 

[goldcatt]

For those who are pro-reform but anti-H. R. 3200, what suggestions do you have to fix it, or for a new bill entirely?

 

[WillowTree]

scrap it. then start over slowly have a plan, be concise, clarify, and don't be so obvious about saving the unions money. as it is now I am 100% against it.

 

[chanel]

I heard there are nine bills now. I would only support reform that eliminates the govt option Despite Obama's flip flop, he had vociferously supported a single payer option, and that's what would happen if the privates insurers had to compete with Congress's magic money machine.

Oncreaes competition across state lines and control costs with regulation like the utility companies. Include mandates for pre existing conditions etc.And introduce a bipartisan bill that is understandable and under a 1000 pages.

 

[Care4all]

The equivalent of the term MONSTER BILL, could be COMPREHENSIVE REFORM....not piece meal

some the glass is half empty, others the glass is half full

 

[Big Black Dog]

I do believe that health care in general, including insurance companies, in this country needs to be modified a bit and cost and expenses more controlled but I do not believe that our government has any business at all trying to manage or control the health care in this country. I do not believe that anybody deserves "free" health care and I do not believe the government has any business selling insurance to anybody. They are not an insurance company. Already they have taken over the auto industry, banks, mortgage companies and now they are trying to manage everybody's health care. What's next? The government needs to butt out.

 

[goldcatt]

I heard there are nine bills now. I would only support reform that eliminates the govt option Despite Obama's flip flop, he had vociferously supported a single payer option, and that's what would happen if the privates insurers had to compete with Congress's magic money machine.

Oncreaes competition across state lines and control costs with regulation like the utility companies. Include mandates for pre existing conditions etc.And introduce a bipartisan bill that is understandable and under a 1000 pages.

I forgot mandates for pre-existing conditions. That's a must, IMO. Thanks.

I disagree with your assessment of a private option inevitably turning into single payer though. If, as is so often claimed, a public option will be horrible quality how can the private insurers fail to be competitive?

I have no problem with a bill being 1000 pages if that's what it takes to set up everything that needs to be done in enough detail that it won't be held up in courts for years as vague or by people arguing over what it means and how to comply. Clarity I'll grant you though. Some technicalities and terms of art can't be avoided, but the usual practice of dazzling us with bullshit only makes matters more complicated for those trying to follow the law.

 

[alan1]

I do believe that health care in general, including insurance companies, in this country needs to be modified a bit and cost and expenses more controlled but I do not believe that our government has any business at all trying to manage or control the health care in this country. I do not believe that anybody deserves "free" health care and I do not believe the government has any business selling insurance to anybody. They are not an insurance company. Already they have taken over the auto industry, banks, mortgage companies and now they are trying to manage everybody's health care. What's next? The government needs to butt out.

I agree.
Maybe some tort reform instead of health care reform would serve us better.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You are not alone Pilgrim.

No one's against health care reform. The people are simply against this far over-reaching, Marxist PLAN.

Instead of fixing the leaky roof, replacing the sagging steps, fixing the faulty plumbing and electrical, and changing out the bath water, THIS plan proposes to tear the whole house down and replace it with a new, trillion dollar one that will still have a leaky roof, sagging steps, bad plumbing and electrical, and throws the baby out with the bath water!

AND tries to pack millions more people into it without any increase in square footage!

The plan makes no sense, and the fast, hard sell just didn't fly.

So now, following Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, they have to try to demonize those who resist, by claiming they are "against reform, against health care." And have to feed us this bullshit of "if we do nothing, it'll be a disaster."

Question for the Health Care Nazis: IF it's soooo urgent, sooooo important to get this passed NOW, why won't this law when signed not go into effect for another year after? Where's the urgency?

The ONLY urgency was to get this thing passed and on Obama's desk before anyone got a chance to really look at it, read it, analyze it, and figure it out!

 

[goldcatt]

I do believe that health care in general, including insurance companies, in this country needs to be modified a bit and cost and expenses more controlled but I do not believe that our government has any business at all trying to manage or control the health care in this country. I do not believe that anybody deserves "free" health care and I do not believe the government has any business selling insurance to anybody. They are not an insurance company. Already they have taken over the auto industry, banks, mortgage companies and now they are trying to manage everybody's health care. What's next? The government needs to butt out.

I agree.
Maybe some tort reform instead of health care reform would serve us better.

Tort reform alone won't do enough to address costs, although I agree some form of it is necessary as part of reform. Although if you do not agree costs need to be controlled then why do you advocate tort reform at all?

 

[Big Black Dog]

I would like to make another point about health care reform that I haven't heard anybody even mention as of yet. There is only so much money available that can be spent be it borrowed, printed up, pulled out from under the mattress or where ever the government can come up with it from. There's just so much money to be had. There has been a tremedous amount of money spent in this country so far on the bail outs, auto industry fixes, cash for clunkers and the beat goes on. What happens if we go for all of the spending that the health care reform is going to call for, and once committed, something really really major comes along - like a war or a big earthquake that destroys Los Angeles, or another hurricane that tears down a city like New Orleans or Miami? Where's the money going to come from to cover this situtation if we've already spent all of our resources? Think like a family for a minute or so. There's only so much money available kids. Where do you want to go on vacation? We can afford the local amusement park but we can't afford Disneyland. You make the call... How do you want to spend the money?

 

[goldcatt]

I would like to make another point about health care reform that I haven't heard anybody even mention as of yet. There is only so much money available that can be spent be it borrowed, printed up, pulled out from under the mattress or where ever the government can come up with it from. There's just so much money to be had. There has been a tremedous amount of money spent in this country so far on the bail outs, auto industry fixes, cash for clunkers and the beat goes on. What happens if we go for all of the spending that the health care reform is going to call for, and once committed, something really really major comes along - like a war or a big earthquake that destroys Los Angeles, or another hurricane that tears down a city like New Orleans or Miami? Where's the money going to come from to cover this situtation if we've already spent all of our resources? Think like a family for a minute or so. There's only so much money available kids. Where do you want to go on vacation? We can afford the local amusement park but we can't afford Disneyland. You make the call... How do you want to spend the money?

This is a valid point, which is one of the reasons I want to see costs addressed. I'd be in favor of requiring accelerated payback of TARP funds with interest, selling off government stakes in GM and other publicly held companies at a measured pace and repealing all or part of the unspent stimulus package.

 

[alan1]

I do believe that health care in general, including insurance companies, in this country needs to be modified a bit and cost and expenses more controlled but I do not believe that our government has any business at all trying to manage or control the health care in this country. I do not believe that anybody deserves "free" health care and I do not believe the government has any business selling insurance to anybody. They are not an insurance company. Already they have taken over the auto industry, banks, mortgage companies and now they are trying to manage everybody's health care. What's next? The government needs to butt out.

I agree.
Maybe some tort reform instead of health care reform would serve us better.

Tort reform alone won't do enough to address costs, although I agree some form of it is necessary as part of reform. Although if you do not agree costs need to be controlled then why do you advocate tort reform at all?

As far as I know, none of the bills currently being worked on include any type of tort reform. Maybe that's because Mr Obama and many in congress have law degrees. Medical malpractice suits have a legitimate place in our society, but overly huge compensatory damage payments do not. Oh, and I really don't know what a fair compensation is for something like harming a child during birth because a doctor fucked up. $10 million seems to be too much though. Medical News: Family set to receive $10 million after bungled birth leaves daughter severely handicapped - CureResearch.com
I find it interesting that many people arguing health care reform want to demonize the insurance industry, yet at the same time, every medical practitioner carries insurance to protect themselves in case of a medical malpractice suit.
I'm not so sure I want the government deciding how much medical treatment should cost, it opens a door that could lead to them deciding how much other things should cost. That being said, I'm not sure I want them deciding how much should be paid for compensatory damage either, but it is the lesser of two evils in my mind.

 

[goldcatt]

I agree.
Maybe some tort reform instead of health care reform would serve us better.

Tort reform alone won't do enough to address costs, although I agree some form of it is necessary as part of reform. Although if you do not agree costs need to be controlled then why do you advocate tort reform at all?

As far as I know, none of the bills currently being worked on include any type of tort reform. Maybe that's because Mr Obama and many in congress have law degrees. Medical malpractice suits have a legitimate place in our society, but overly huge compensatory damage payments do not. Oh, and I really don't know what a fair compensation is for something like harming a child during birth because a doctor fucked up. $10 million seems to be too much though. Medical News: Family set to receive $10 million after bungled birth leaves daughter severely handicapped - CureResearch.com
I find it interesting that many people arguing health care reform want to demonize the insurance industry, yet at the same time, every medical practitioner carries insurance to protect themselves in case of a medical malpractice suit.
I'm not so sure I want the government deciding how much medical treatment should cost, it opens a door that could lead to them deciding how much other things should cost. That being said, I'm not sure I want them deciding how much should be paid for compensatory damage either, but it is the lesser of two evils in my mind.

The only problem is, payouts on medical malpractice cases are already not decided by government. In the cases settled prior to litigation (the vast majority) the plaintiff usually accepts a payout offered by the malpractice insurance company at their discretion, or the parties come to a mutual agreement through negotiations. If it goes to court, unless the plaintiff waives the right to a jury trial (I never did personal injury or malpractice work, but I understand this is relatively rare) then the jury decides the amount of the award. The only case where a government employee of any kind determines the amount of any award is in a case that goes to trial where the right to a jury is waived, leaving the judge to make that determination. Or if the amount decided by the jury is unsupported as a matter of law, in which case the judge can modify it.

I support tort reform in general, not just for medical malpractice, because I feel too many institutions and industries have become far too defensive, our nation is overly litigious, and the costs in many areas from education to health care to consumer products is too high. We need to find a better balance between consumer protection from real fraud and abuse and access to courts for legitimate concerns and the kind of out of control frivolous garbage that pulls in parties that are completely innocent simply because they touched a product at some point in the distribution chain and blames anybody with a deep pocket for someone's stupidity.

 

[alan1]

Tort reform alone won't do enough to address costs, although I agree some form of it is necessary as part of reform. Although if you do not agree costs need to be controlled then why do you advocate tort reform at all?

As far as I know, none of the bills currently being worked on include any type of tort reform. Maybe that's because Mr Obama and many in congress have law degrees. Medical malpractice suits have a legitimate place in our society, but overly huge compensatory damage payments do not. Oh, and I really don't know what a fair compensation is for something like harming a child during birth because a doctor fucked up. $10 million seems to be too much though. Medical News: Family set to receive $10 million after bungled birth leaves daughter severely handicapped - CureResearch.com
I find it interesting that many people arguing health care reform want to demonize the insurance industry, yet at the same time, every medical practitioner carries insurance to protect themselves in case of a medical malpractice suit.
I'm not so sure I want the government deciding how much medical treatment should cost, it opens a door that could lead to them deciding how much other things should cost. That being said, I'm not sure I want them deciding how much should be paid for compensatory damage either, but it is the lesser of two evils in my mind.

The only problem is, payouts on medical malpractice cases are already not decided by government. In the cases settled prior to litigation (the vast majority) the plaintiff usually accepts a payout offered by the malpractice insurance company at their discretion, or the parties come to a mutual agreement through negotiations. If it goes to court, unless the plaintiff waives the right to a jury trial (I never did personal injury or malpractice work, but I understand this is relatively rare) then the jury decides the amount of the award. The only case where a government employee of any kind determines the amount of any award is in a case that goes to trial where the right to a jury is waived, leaving the judge to make that determination. Or if the amount decided by the jury is unsupported as a matter of law, in which case the judge can modify it.

I support tort reform in general, not just for medical malpractice, because I feel too many institutions and industries have become far too defensive, our nation is overly litigious, and the costs in many areas from education to health care to consumer products is too high. We need to find a better balance between consumer protection from real fraud and abuse and access to courts for legitimate concerns and the kind of out of control frivolous garbage that pulls in parties that are completely innocent simply because they touched a product at some point in the distribution chain and blames anybody with a deep pocket for someone's stupidity.

I'm aware that the juries and not the government determine payouts in civil suits. It's a fine line that I am treading when I ask for tort reform. If the losers of frivolous lawsuits had to pay for the defending parties attorney I'm sure we'd see a dramatic reduction in them.