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

[Contumacious]

I see. Just kill this bill, which is only in formative stage at present, and wait another decade or two for another try.

So we should not try to stop the legislation from being adopted in order to be polite or is it because it is REALLY healthcare reform?

 

[goldcatt]

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.

On this we can agree!

 

[Liability]

The health care "bill" under discussion, like much of the garbage contemplated by our illustrious Congress, is incomprehesible gibberish.

I JUST stumbled upon a legal decision that addressed a very different bit of [NY] legislation, but which made a few very telling comments along the way. Let me quote the part I found relevant to THIS discussion:

* * * * No less a Jeffersonian than Justice Frankfurter, who was as staunch as Holmes or Hand in upholding the broad power of the Legislature to enact laws free from judicial interference, demanded precision in legislative draftsmanship as an obligation the Legislature owed to a democratic society. He gave the example illustrated in a cartoon of a senator telling his colleagues, 'I admit this new [bill] is too complicated to understand. We'll just have to pass it to find out what it means' * * * *

People v. Buffington, 304 N.Y.S.2d 746, 61 Misc.2d 429 (N.Y. Co. Ct., 1969)

I DREAD doing that with this Health Care monstrosity. We may discover, somewhere down the road, that we don't like what it suddenly "means."

 

[Annie]

Link to sec 102

 

[Annie]

Also very troubling:

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: IRS The New Health Care Enforcer

Links at site.

House sections:

Biggie, sec 401

Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (you'll need to scroll up a few lines)

Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (you'll need to scroll up a few lines)

Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (you'll need to scroll up a few lines)

 

[goldcatt]

So what would you do differently, Annie?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The entire mantra of "republicans and evil special interest groups are trying to stop refoooooorrrrrm" is dishonest on its face. The Democrats don't need any republican votes or support to pass anything they wish. They need only to craft legislation that is palatable to 100% of their own membership!

Somehow this fact keeps getting buried in all the whining, hand-wringing and blame-shifting going on.

 

[Annie]

So what would you do differently, Annie?

How about actual reform? Keep government out of our records and certainly the IRS. Reminds me very much of the attacks on Joe the Plumber.

Read the WSJ article by CEO of Whole Foods, that explains 'reforms', you know, things that will get those that lack but wish coverage, covered. The reforms that would go a long ways to lowering costs.

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are noticing the economy is ever so slightly beginning to get traction. Remember in a recession that jobs are the last things to come back, and that should be happening in growing numbers by early summer next year. We can thank the neo-con Pubs for the recession, and the moderate and conservative democrats and moderate pubs for the recovery.

Bush, Cheney, Rush, Sean, Glenn etc have destroyed the post-Reagan party. They all have to leave the Party along with their supporters, and we have already begun in many communities across the nation fashioning the new Party. We will be able to compete by 2016.

Don't get downhearted, fellow pubs. Politics in America run in cycles and we will have to let this cycle finish. But always remember that we shot ourselves in the foot, and then only then did the Dems stomp on it. Get the revolversout of the neo-con/neo-econ fools' hands.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

The polls show the majority of Americans support health care/insurance reform but oppose HR 3200, and they oppose it for a variety of reasons, but the Dems have tried to control the debate by arguing that if you are not for the health care/insurance reform Obama implies, hints or suggests he might be for or HR 3200 you are opposed to any health care/insurance reform.

HR 3200 and the changes Obama may or may not be supporting will increase health care costs according to the CBO, increase health insurance premiums additionally by adding the cost of insuring people with preexisting conditions at standard rates and continuing health insurance for people who stop paying their premiums because of loss of income due to illness, thus adding to labor costs for US companies making them less competitive and less eager to hire new workers, force the states to either raise taxes, cut services or run up deficits to pay for the more than 50% increase in Medicaid rolls this bill will create. On top of that, it is hard to imagine that this bill or the changes Obama suggests he might support will not cause us to run up additional deficits or cause us to raise taxes more than now proposed.

This bill, which Obama may or may not support, will benefit the relatively small group of Americans who honestly cannot afford health insurance now to the detriment of all other Americans and to the detriment of our national and state economies. It is not even clear that the changes it embodies should legitimately be called reforms. There are some good elements in the bill that taken separately would win broad support, imo, such as health insurance exchanges and allowing workers to apply their employer's contribution to individual policies at health insurance exchanges and finding a way to make health insurance policies national so people don't lose coverage when the move from job to job or state to state because of pre exisiting conditions and requiring health insurance companies to offer disability riders on all health insurance policies so you don't lose your health insurance if you lose your income due to illness, but taken as a package, HR 3200 does more harm than good to the vast majority of Americans.

 

[goldcatt]

So what would you do differently, Annie?

How about actual reform? Keep government out of our records and certainly the IRS. Reminds me very much of the attacks on Joe the Plumber.

Read the WSJ article by CEO of Whole Foods, that explains 'reforms', you know, things that will get those that lack but wish coverage, covered. The reforms that would go a long ways to lowering costs.

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

There are some good ideas in this editorial. I agree competition between private insurers across state lines could be effective, for one thing. The only stipulation I have is that there has to be some protection against insurers all relocating to states with regulations that are most favorable to them and least favorable to the consumer. A race to the bottom benefits nobody in the end. I also agree with equalizing the tax burden, cost transparency and medicare reform as well as the position I've previously stated on tort reform.

I simply don't agree with the premise that only those who can afford private coverage or happen to work for an employer who offers health benefits should have access to basic medical care. Lack of basic care is not only more expensive in the long run, it affects overall national productivity and would contribute significantly to any public health emergency such as H1N1 or another pandemic.

None of these reforms, good cost-cutting measures though they are, is enough to address the gap in coverage IMO. There needs to be at least a two-part solution.

 

[Mary]

Thanks for putting the whole thing into perspective. As for a bill that might work, how about removing all government input and regulation and let the free market be in control.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the corporatists will not let the free markets operate.

They strangle them into monopolies in order to monopolize wealth.

 

[Annie]

Well lookie here:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

Now why? Oh yeah:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
51 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, Ed. That would actually be bi-partisan and independent pressure...President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory....

 

[goldcatt]

Thanks for putting the whole thing into perspective. As for a bill that might work, how about removing all government input and regulation and let the free market be in control.

Welcome aboard!

With some industries I would tend to agree with you, but we as a nation should have an interest in public health and some sort of consumer protections to make sure as many people as possible can afford basic care. We're not talking about socks here, we're talking about access to basic care.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks for putting the whole thing into perspective. As for a bill that might work, how about removing all government input and regulation and let the free market be in control.

Welcome aboard!

With some industries I would tend to agree with you, but we as a nation should have an interest in public health and some sort of consumer protections to make sure as many people as possible can afford basic care. We're not talking about socks here, we're talking about access to basic care.

Just so.

 

[goldcatt]

Well lookie here:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

Now why? Oh yeah:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
51 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, Ed. That would actually be bi-partisan and independent pressure...President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory....

As long as we get results, I for one don't really care how they get there. Co-ops could work, I'd have to see the details before signing on though.

 

[Annie]

Well lookie here:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

Now why? Oh yeah:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
51 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, Ed. That would actually be bi-partisan and independent pressure...President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory....

As long as we get results, I for one don't really care how they get there. Co-ops could work, I'd have to see the details before signing on though.

I've yet to see 'results.' Now mind you, the Democrats may do what they wish on their own and they might. They have the majorities in both houses, so they can. The price? Perhaps 2010 and beyond...

 

[goldcatt]

Well lookie here:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

Now why? Oh yeah:

As long as we get results, I for one don't really care how they get there. Co-ops could work, I'd have to see the details before signing on though.

I've yet to see 'results.' Now mind you, the Democrats may do what they wish on their own and they might. They have the majorities in both houses, so they can. The price? Perhaps 2010 and beyond...

No, you wouldn't see any results yet because nothing has been done yet.

How exactly are private co-ops such a bad thing in your opinion that establishing them would cost the Dems so dearly?

 

[Annie]

As long as we get results, I for one don't really care how they get there. Co-ops could work, I'd have to see the details before signing on though.

I've yet to see 'results.' Now mind you, the Democrats may do what they wish on their own and they might. They have the majorities in both houses, so they can. The price? Perhaps 2010 and beyond...

No, you wouldn't see any results yet because nothing has been done yet.

How exactly are private co-ops such a bad thing in your opinion that establishing them would cost the Dems so dearly?

I've missed something here, give me a link to your private co-ops. If we are addressing allowing like businesses to group together for 'big business' rates, we're on the same page.