"Centrist" Dems trying to push their weight

[DamnYankee]

Centrist Dems Try to Limit Public Health Care Option
Centrist Democrats raise big concerns - Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

A coalition of more than 100 moderate House Democrats is hoping to unify as they attempt to limit the size and scope of a government-sponsored health insurance option -- a key sticking point as health reform enters a delicate phase of negotiations. ... All told, members of the New Dems and the Blue Dogs combine for 102 votes -- more than one-third of the entire Democratic Caucus -- so they could have a serious impact on health care. ... In a letter to the speaker earlier this week, New Democrat leaders asked her to make sure the public option pays for itself through premiums and co-payments and doesn't receive any money through tax revenue..."

Okay, so how many "centrist" aka moderate Dems are there in the House? That would oppose this particular "reform" bill? Hmmm.... <thinking>

So.... Are where's the weight to push anything? Aren't they the ones being pushed?

 

[alan1]

The mere fact that government sponsored/controlled health care is even an option proves that big government is pushing an agenda.

 

[DamnYankee]

The mere fact that government sponsored/controlled health care is even an option proves that big government is pushing an agenda.

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

 

[alan1]

The mere fact that government sponsored/controlled health care is even an option proves that big government is pushing an agenda.

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

 

[Toro]

The mere fact that government sponsored/controlled health care is even an option proves that big government is pushing an agenda.

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

So you would abolish the FDA and any regulations regarding the standards of cleanliness in hospitals and the accreditation of doctors?

 

[Full-Auto]

Right now, bureaucrats in the private health industry are making medical decisions for you. It's their job to make a profit, thus denying care.


Good man. Since being new I CAN NOT POST THE LINK

However it rings very true. I dont want them anywhere near me period.


Obama, flanked by the AHA,AMA,A-Hip,Pharma,AdvaMed, and SEIU, stated those groups over the next 10 years are pledging "to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year &#8212; an amount that&#8217;s equal to over $2 trillion."

Well, of course, that press conference sort of identifies what the real problem is, a cartelized industry that apparently has the power to set supply and demand. To me, this is so elementary that it's trivial. No one with a straight face can argue that monopolies efficiently deliver goods and services. The counter-argument to this is that health care is supposedly different, that it's a "public good" or that it's a "right." These arguments are bogus. Health Care is neither non-rivaled nor non-excludable. Health Care as a "right" is just a slogan. The devil is in the details. Do you, for example, have the right to a hip replacement, cosmetic surgery, or invasive brain surgery? Do you have an absolute right to any medical care that increases or probabilistically increases your overall utility? Of course not. Some bureaucrat will make a utility calculation of hip replacement surgery for a 79 old woman against the overall utility of the general population with scarce resources and deny the surgery. Health Care denied. So obviously, there is no such thing as a "right" to health care itself. All you would really have is just a right to a "utility calculation" for health care. You may or may not receive the actual health care service. Somehow, the right to "Health Care as a Utility Calculation" doesn't quite resonate so strongly as a slogan. But that's the reality. Thus, since health care as a "right" really reduces to a utilitarian calculation," we're back to the easy question of considering the economic efficiencies of monopolies/cartels vs. a free market model.

 

[alan1]

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

So you would abolish the FDA and any regulations regarding the standards of cleanliness in hospitals and the accreditation of doctors?

OK, one iota may have been a bit far.

 

[DamnYankee]

The mere fact that government sponsored/controlled health care is even an option proves that big government is pushing an agenda.

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

Well, at some point, I'll 'splain it again, 'cause they're already involved -- maybe not in YOURS -- and it makes a whole lot more sense, since they're determined to BE involved to do the RIGHT WAY.

 

[DamnYankee]

Since being new I CAN NOT POST THE LINK

Never could figure out the rationale, but maybe if you yell out what you want included, someone will do it for you.

 

[alan1]

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

Well, at some point, I'll 'splain it again, 'cause they're already involved -- maybe not in YOURS -- and it makes a whole lot more sense, since they're determined to BE involved to do the RIGHT WAY.

Or does it make more sense to try and keep them less involved?
I don't want some government bureaucrat getting involved in my personal health care decisions.
Look at it this way, if I was determined to rape you, would you want to be raped in the RIGHT WAY?

 

[amrchaos]

Moderate democrats realize that UHC costs too damn much!

It is a budget buster!!

How can they fund their pet projects if UHC is in the Budget(and throw some money back to their sponsers)

UHC--bad for government!!

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

The gov says what drugs you can and cannot have, the gov controls licensing of medical professionals, a carestand of hospitals.

If you want the total "other" system there are shamans, curanderas, and so on.... underground, or herbalists....

Your health care is not between you and the DR..... no way to back track, so what is should work for the greatest number, and that is well care, rather than what we have now.

 

[Sinatra]

Moderate democrats realize that UHC costs too damn much!

It is a budget buster!!

How can they fund their pet projects if UHC is in the Budget(and throw some money back to their sponsers)

UHC--bad for government!!

Bingo - we have House Elections coming up and there are a lot of Dems very nervous about this health care proposal.

The Obama White House has made it a test of his administration. If it fails - it will be his failure.

They are sweating bullets over this - but they have backed into this corner and now have to salvage some sense of victory.

It is going to get interesting in DC....

 

[DamnYankee]

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

Well, at some point, I'll 'splain it again, 'cause they're already involved -- maybe not in YOURS -- and it makes a whole lot more sense, since they're determined to BE involved to do the RIGHT WAY.

Or does it make more sense to try and keep them less involved?
I don't want some government bureaucrat getting involved in my personal health care decisions.
Look at it this way, if I was determined to rape you, would you want to be raped in the RIGHT WAY?

Not a good analogy. Rape is a crime.

Health care is a need, regardless of who pays. I certainly understand the government has no credibility with respect to a track record for handling much of anything. That's the problem in a nutshell. You've got all these bureaucrats who don't know shit about health administration trying to deal with the entitlement programs we already have, trying to make a deal with insurers and the pharmaceutical companies, trying to figure out how to protect physicians who are getting killed with malpractice insurance because because they refuse to enact tort reform, and trying to figure out how to ensure that everyone has access to the health care system.

It really doesn't have anything to do with your personal decision making. It has to do with creating an efficient system from which everyone has a choice, and in which there are no overlaps or gaps. It isn't as difficult as everyone would like you to believe it is -- they just don't know how to do it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

So you would abolish the FDA and any regulations regarding the standards of cleanliness in hospitals and the accreditation of doctors?

Well gee... Let's see... They're doctors... they specialize in the treatment of disease...

SO... with that said, I wonder what the reason would be for 'Government mandated: Standard of cleanliness' in a Hospital...'

ROFL... Again we find a would-be moderate who comes to inform us that ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN MAINTAIN HEALTH STANDARDS... and that those who operate such facilities are simply not qualified to know what such standards should be, or how to maintain such... The next time you see this member, you will probably find her crying about the cost of going to the Hospital which is saddled with maintaining the "High Government Standards of Cleanliness" which require 'special this and Expensive THAT and PILES of paperwork to prove compliance and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in regulatory fees which must be paid, BEFORE ONE MOP SLIDES OVER A SINGLE TILE...

As to Accrediting worthiness as a physician... one would think that such would fall to the schools who provide for such... They're in that business... one would think that they wouldn't need someone to tell them what is necessary to establish medical worthiness...

Yet, our would-be moderate finds that ONLY the long arm of government can assure such... when such is not assured today, despite A MASSIVE Bureaucracy designed for nothing else.

The fact is that the FDA doesn't assure food safety... the government doesn't assure professional integrity or anything of the kind... what they DO is suck up MASSIVE amounts of tax payer money coming up with ways which they feel provides them with a reason to exist and grow exponentially in terms of size and power with the election of every leftist administration.

And as noted above, the next time we see this member, she'll likely be crying about the RIDICULOUS amount of money it takes to become a Doctor and the CRIME of forcing these brilliant kids to saddle themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans before they even see their first patient...

All of which falls under "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" of lending credence to the feminized idiocy of the ideological left.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

The gov says what drugs you can and cannot have, the gov controls licensing of medical professionals, a carestand of hospitals.

If you want the total "other" system there are shamans, curanderas, and so on.... underground, or herbalists....

Your health care is not between you and the DR..... no way to back track, so what is should work for the greatest number, and that is well care, rather than what we have now.

What we have now is the equal opportunity of everyone to provide for whatever level of care which they are prepared to PAY FOR.

You can get an insurance policy which covers you for whatever it is you want... zero deductbile? No Problem... 100,000,000 in lifetime benefits... NO PROBLEM! Just be prepared to unass 100,000/ year to enjoy it.

When you go to your employer and buy the lowest cost policy his carrier offers; such is going to provide for high deductibles, limitations as to who will treat you, coverage limits, prescription drug limits and so on...

If you want to go to an herbalist... you can; NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU! They're out there ready to take your money and offer you the best advice that their website based warehouse can offer...

If a Shaman is your thing... Go in peace and have your soul stroked... your back poked and pay the man the $50...

If you are a 20 something and feel that you don't want to part with $150/week for Insurance you aren't going to use... DON'T PAY IT!

The fact is that you can't nod your head with every 'good idea' that the Health police come up with; which requires Doctors and Hospitals to be saddled with an ever increasing pile of regulatory processes and fees and expect that this is going to IMPROVE things, when "IMPROVE" means its going to cost you more than you can EVER HOPE TO SPEND TO USE IT.

Healthcare is no different from the any other product... and like the mortgage business when the left ran to 'make Mortgages affordable and available to everyone... what happened? The cost of buying a house went from something the majority of people could afford to bizarro-world... where a 3-2 Ranch was selling for $400,000...

And THAT friend is just ONE FACET of what has happened to the cost of healthcare... People are paying for healthcare through insurance policies, which provide for MASSIVE amounts of money for treatment... Why does the doctor charge $300 for an office visit?

Because your insurance company will PAY $300 for an office visit.

Another facet is that a small practice MD is faced with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS A YEAR IN JUST LIABILITY INSURANCE...

That's before he pays Nurse Goodbody, Rent on his swanky office digs, All those cool medical posters, the scale... and the tongue depressors... He has absurd fee he pays to the local Hospital... and so on... and NONE OF THAT includes one CENT for the aforementioned regulatory expenses...

The moral of the story is that MOST of the expenses which you're complaining about are CAUSED DIRECTLY BY THE GOVERNMENT... which is the group which you're DEMANDING provide you with Free-healthcare.

Don't be an idiot... there's no such thing... and all of us paying into a single system is not going to cut expenses one cent... to the contrary it is going to cut TREATMENT; quality and your life expectancy.

Want to cut the cost of healthcare... cut government out of it and watch the price PLUMMET INSTANTLY...

When Doctors can't expect to receive $300 for an office visit, or when they're subject to competition where another Doctor is doing it for $200, because he CAN... well guess what happens?

It's not complicated... it's just not all that pleasent to consider.

 

[Toro]

Well gee... Let's see...

Publius.

Let me clue you in.

You are on the irrelevant wing of the political spectrum now. I've included all of your post that is of interest to the general public.

 

[oreo]

The mere fact that government sponsored/controlled health care is even an option proves that big government is pushing an agenda.

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

It looks like you've got some expertice in this area. Right now--I can't figure out what bill is coming out of Washington. One is play or pay--then another & another. What would you do to bring down costs--in order to make medical insurance affordable?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[DamnYankee]

The mere fact that government sponsored/controlled health care is even an option proves that big government is pushing an agenda.

I would not have a problem with it if they were doing it right, but as a health administrator, I can clearly see that they aren't, and all they're interested in is being able to say "this was accomplished".

It looks like you've got some expertice in this area. Right now--I can't figure out what bill is coming out of Washington. One is play or pay--then another & another. What would you do to bring down costs--in order to make medical insurance affordable?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

I'll presume that you've read the follow-up by now, and that will give you some insight.

 

[alan1]

Well I'm stubborn, I don't want the government involved in my health care one iota.

The gov says what drugs you can and cannot have, the gov controls licensing of medical professionals, a carestand of hospitals.

If you want the total "other" system there are shamans, curanderas, and so on.... underground, or herbalists....

Your health care is not between you and the DR..... no way to back track, so what is should work for the greatest number, and that is well care, rather than what we have now.

Actually, my health care is between me and my doctor. And sometimes she gets pissed off when I argue her preferred treatments. I just have to remind her that she works for me.