If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly

[Murf76]

The problem with giving all "social welfare" programs over to the states is that some will have better benefits than others and therefore see their populations rise from neighboring states whose benefits are not as great. I can't think of any governor who would encourage that.

You're only looking at half the equation. The other half is attracting citizens and businesses. Money coming in; money going out. That means, you have to make the most out of your revenues, because as we see in states like California and New York... people take their money and leave when you don't.

Each state would be forced by necessity to strike the best balance between attracting revenues and social spending. Some would do it better than others, but all would have the benefit of example in the other 49 microcosms.

 

[MaggieMae]

Government to Pay Over Half of Health Care Costs - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors

Bills paid by government insurance programs /= "Government runs healthcare"

What? You think they just hand the money out to people?.. that there's no regulation?.. no case management?.. no denied claims? You think they pay out providers in full?


This argument that that Obamacare isn't a "government takeover" is completely disingenuous. It's obvious that it is. And frankly, you folks can be offended by the language all you like. What I'm offended by.. is the ACTION of government taking over our healthcare. You know how Obama can avoid the accusation of "government takeover"?.... by NOT taking over our nation's industries.

This country is a republic, built on the principles of federalism. Central government was supposed to be LIMITED. And every depredation upon our Constitution is a usurpation of power.

Why isn't there ever any shock by cons over the amount of the defense budget? If people are constantly going to be dragging the poor Constitution into arguments like this, I'm sure the principles set forth in the Constitution regarding "defense" of the new union did not anticipate that ours would be greater than all other nations combined.

 

[MaggieMae]

Quite simple....

Take out "pre-existing conditions" clauses and not a single insurer will survive. It will be impossible.

And all will be forced into a government plan.

I suggest the congress and the administration call it what it is and explain why....and people may support it.

It is a long term government takeover of healthcare...and for good or bad, it will cost all of us a fortune.

Absolute nonsense. The pre-existing condition clause allows insurance companies to deny insurance to those who need it most.

Medicare denies more claims than any insurance company, so maybe you assholes should start there ...........

That's bull. One of the reasons it's going broke is because it does NOT deny claims when it should.

 

[Zoom-boing]

According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.

Medicare’s Refusal of Medical Claims Continues to Outpace Private Rate | The Beacon

 

[MaggieMae]

He tried to be bipartisan, honest to God he did. I've been watching same as you have since the election. The republicans just don't realize that they're not in power anymore. Furthermore, as you evidence well, they're kinda saying "Why should we compromise with you? No matter what stupid thing we say, people will believe us!"

Do you really feel your liberties are being violated? I mean really? Give it a rest. As far as trying to sue the government? Isn't taking away the ability to sue a big part of the conservative manifesto on "Reform?"

Barack may be no Bill Clinton, but he's a very accomplished, intelligent, articulate man, and I think you'll find he has an ace up his sleeve. He ain't going off quietly into the night. And he is not alienating the country; misconceptions and lies about him are dividing the country, believe that.

You believe it. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck!

And 'yes'... I really do feel that my liberties are being violated. Since when do we have to purchase an insurance product as a matter of legal citizenship? And you do realize, don't you, that our private medical records have been seized as a provision of the Porkulus bill? By law, they're to be electronically recorded and available to whatever government flunkie Kathleen Sebelius decides to put in charge of Comparative Effectiveness Studies by 2014. Now, how is that NOT against the 4th Amendment?... or the 5th, 9th, or 10th for that matter? Whether one argues that a medical record is the property of the patient or the doctor, one thing it damn sure is NOT... is the property of the U.S. Government.

Have you considered the hoops people are put through just to work these days? Check out the repeat broadcast of Stossel this weekend on the Fox Business channel for an overview about how onerous licensing regulations keep new entrepreneurs from breaking into markets and keep prices high.
And do you realize that under Wickard v. Filburn all the federal government has to do is to decide that whatever you're doing is of "commercial value" and they're right up your butt? Your backyard tomato plants could be regulated if Congress ever took an interest in them.

Anyway... yeah. They're taking our liberty bit by bit.

As far as tort reform is concerned... bear in mind that litigation is the "quality control" mechanism which keeps our healthcare standards the best in the world. That said, some tort reform is necessary in order to bring down costs and prevent over-treatment. There are only limited things that the federal government can do though without treading on the 10th. Tort reform needs to occur primarily at the state level.

Oh... and as to Barry being "accomplished, intelligent, and articulate"... that's YOUR opinion. In MY opinion, he's an inept, ignorant, narcissistic windbag. And even I, a Republican, can see that he's not worthy of carrying Bill Clinton's jock-strap.

Dream on, dream on. Give us a list of people he hasn't alienated. It'll be shorter.

Your problem is that you ONLY listen to the one side (Stossel, Fox?). Any good articulation by you gets buried by the confession of your bias, which I'm sure is inbred but certainly fueled by a lot of propaganda.

Just before the election, 62% of Americans said it was more important than ever to take on health care reform according to ALL the polls. After last summer's hatefests at town hall meetings, and the rest of the widely publicized negativity from the right wing noise machines, that number has dropped considerably.

Frankly, I have several problems with the current bill, not the least of which is that it's too confusing for the average American to understand, but there's no such thing as "simple" health reform. One part connects to another part or maybe all the other parts, so the bill is excruciatingly long by virtue of its attempt to cover all possibilities. But the bottom line is that health care in the private sector has been dramatically rising and more and more people in the middle are getting crucified financially because of it.

 

[rightwinger]

Starting to look like the Dems have the votes to pass healthcare. Hopefully, by this time next week it will be a done deal

 

[Murf76]

If you support a free market in healthcare then you support the principle that the wealthier a person is, the healthier he will be, on average, and, conversely, that the less wealthy a person is, the less healthy they will be. That's fine, if that's the way you think it should be, but many disagree with you.

First things first.... the socialist model of healthcare is a utopian ideal. In practical use, the wealthiest people still get the best quality of everything. They simply bypass the low-quality system and BUY a better product.

A free market actually decreases the cost because, like everything else, it is dependent upon supply and demand. A socialist system INCREASES demand, and when supply is not sufficient to meet it, prices rise. As government caps the rising costs, less supply is delivered because the industry is no longer lucrative. A free market allows greater supply as more entrepreneurs compete for each dollar. The higher volume of supply creates the need for volume sales. Prices fall. There aren't enough super-wealthy customers to provide volume.

The flaw in your post is that you're not creating health... you're reducing access by reducing supply. The reduction in supply means that people can't always see a doctor when they want to, and the people who are MOST hurt by that are the ones who aren't wealthy enough to bypass the system.

 

[MaggieMae]

According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.

Medicare’s Refusal of Medical Claims Continues to Outpace Private Rate | The Beacon

Sorry, but you would need to provide a link that says WHY those claims were denied. If a Medicare patient has a valid claim, s/he will NOT be denied based on some obscure formula unbeknownst beforehand like private insurers do. I got denied last year for the cost of a complete physical, which was optional on my part, because a Medicare recipient is only entitled to ONE complete physical paid for 100% and that's only in the first year of coverage. If you don't do it then, the payments are made (or denied) based on the specific formula outlined in a nice, easy to read, clearly stated manual with no fine print.

 

[MaggieMae]

Starting to look like the Dems have the votes to pass healthcare. Hopefully, by this time next week it will be a done deal

There will be rioting in the streets; men in black with big guns; women with big hair having heart attacks; John Boehner will suddenly go pale and lead his herd to spring break for another round of group think to demolish the Obama administration. Can't hardly wait for Civil War redux.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you support a free market in healthcare then you support the principle that the wealthier a person is, the healthier he will be, on average, and, conversely, that the less wealthy a person is, the less healthy they will be. That's fine, if that's the way you think it should be, but many disagree with you.

First things first.... the socialist model of healthcare is a utopian ideal. In practical use, the wealthiest people still get the best quality of everything. They simply bypass the low-quality system and BUY a better product.

A free market actually decreases the cost because, like everything else, it is dependent upon supply and demand. A socialist system INCREASES demand, and when supply is not sufficient to meet it, prices rise. As government caps the rising costs, less supply is delivered because the industry is no longer lucrative. A free market allows greater supply as more entrepreneurs compete for each dollar. The higher volume of supply creates the need for volume sales. Prices fall. There aren't enough super-wealthy customers to provide volume.

The flaw in your post is that you're not creating health... you're reducing access by reducing supply. The reduction in supply means that people can't always see a doctor when they want to, and the people who are MOST hurt by that are the ones who aren't wealthy enough to bypass the system.

The flaw in YOUR post is that BECAUSE OF Medicare, people are living longer because the elderly have access to better health care when they often had little or none at all. That also affects the population now receiving Social Security benefits. Are we just supposed to die off naturally after a certain age like we did not too many decades ago? Isn't the whole purpose of the Constitution to ...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...??

 

[MaggieMae]

Gotta go for today, folks. All in all, despite fervent disagreements, a good debate overall.

Mags

 

[Murf76]

Your problem is that you ONLY listen to the one side (Stossel, Fox?). Any good articulation by you gets buried by the confession of your bias, which I'm sure is inbred but certainly fueled by a lot of propaganda.

I think for myself, Maggie. I use my OWN logic. I don't depend upon other people to tell me what to THINK. I might agree with John Stossel on some things, or disagree with him on others... but nothing he could say would program my opinion. If you can't say the same, then I feel sorry for you... but it's your cross to bear and not mine.

Just before the election, 62% of Americans said it was more important than ever to take on health care reform according to ALL the polls. After last summer's hatefests at town hall meetings, and the rest of the widely publicized negativity from the right wing noise machines, that number has dropped considerably.

Doing something about the rising prices of healthcare doesn't mean approval of Obama's giant, pile-of-shit, takeover of healthcare. So, yeah... a majority of people think healthcare should be addressed. That does NOT translate into support of the proposed legislation.

Frankly, I have several problems with the current bill, not the least of which is that it's too confusing for the average American to understand, but there's no such thing as "simple" health reform. One part connects to another part or maybe all the other parts, so the bill is excruciatingly long by virtue of its attempt to cover all possibilities. But the bottom line is that health care in the private sector has been dramatically rising and more and more people in the middle are getting crucified financially because of it.

Ugh... WHY can you people not understand that it's because of the government interference we already have that the laws of supply and demand cannot work?
If a given State legislature MANDATES that insurance companies in that state provide coverage for X, Y, and Z... then the price of the policies MUST rise to provide each member with X, Y, and Z. It is no longer "insurance" when we're dealing with routine care. It's pre-paying the cost of the care.

Meanwhile, onerous regulations regarding licensing, liability insurance, and overhead keep the supply of practitioners small. My kids have bypassed careers in medicine and in education, even though they certainly have the aptitude. These things are too big a pain in the ass. They want less hassle and less outlay in expense.

This bill compounds our problems. It doesn't solve them. What we're seeing in healthcare today is NOT a free market.

 

[Murf76]

The flaw in YOUR post is that BECAUSE OF Medicare, people are living longer because the elderly have access to better health care when they often had little or none at all. That also affects the population now receiving Social Security benefits. Are we just supposed to die off naturally after a certain age like we did not too many decades ago? Isn't the whole purpose of the Constitution to ...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...??

You didn't happen to notice that Medicare is going broke and that some doctors are turning it down?... or that rich people still keep better insurance on the side and pay out of pocket for things that aren't covered?

 

[rightwinger]

Starting to look like the Dems have the votes to pass healthcare. Hopefully, by this time next week it will be a done deal

There will be rioting in the streets; men in black with big guns; women with big hair having heart attacks; John Boehner will suddenly go pale and lead his herd to spring break for another round of group think to demolish the Obama administration. Can't hardly wait for Civil War redux.

You forgot to mention the forming of Death Panels

 

[Murf76]

Sorry, but you would need to provide a link that says WHY those claims were denied. If a Medicare patient has a valid claim, s/he will NOT be denied based on some obscure formula unbeknownst beforehand like private insurers do. I got denied last year for the cost of a complete physical, which was optional on my part, because a Medicare recipient is only entitled to ONE complete physical paid for 100% and that's only in the first year of coverage. If you don't do it then, the payments are made (or denied) based on the specific formula outlined in a nice, easy to read, clearly stated manual with no fine print.

Private insurance companies cannot legally deny claims without a valid reason either. They're breaching contract if they do.

 

[rdean]

Medicare denies more claims than any insurance company, so maybe you assholes should start there ...........

So you're saying government health care is better?

Yeah, that's what i was saying ........

Good, I just wanted to make sure of the Republican position.

The Bush tax cuts, passed because Republicans used reconciliation, cost two and a half times more than the democratic health care plan. Of course, more than half of that tax cut went to the top 5%, so it was worth it.

Emergency rooms cost 10 times the amount that insurance would cost, so Republicans find that "fiscally responsible".

Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, trillions in tax cuts during a time of war, is there ANYTHING the Republicans know how to do that won't **** things up worse?

 

[rdean]

Sorry, but you would need to provide a link that says WHY those claims were denied. If a Medicare patient has a valid claim, s/he will NOT be denied based on some obscure formula unbeknownst beforehand like private insurers do. I got denied last year for the cost of a complete physical, which was optional on my part, because a Medicare recipient is only entitled to ONE complete physical paid for 100% and that's only in the first year of coverage. If you don't do it then, the payments are made (or denied) based on the specific formula outlined in a nice, easy to read, clearly stated manual with no fine print.

Private insurance companies cannot legally deny claims without a valid reason either. They're breaching contract if they do.

Not unless there is a "pre-existing" condition. Don't just say part of the truth, say it ALL.

If a man and his wife has two children and all are covered under his insurance policy, and the man gets cancer, if it is known that one of the children has an allergy, the entire family can be dropped because of the "pre-existing condition".

Don't you guys even know what you are defending? Seriously? Do you have a clue?

 

[rdean]

The flaw in YOUR post is that BECAUSE OF Medicare, people are living longer because the elderly have access to better health care when they often had little or none at all. That also affects the population now receiving Social Security benefits. Are we just supposed to die off naturally after a certain age like we did not too many decades ago? Isn't the whole purpose of the Constitution to ...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...??

You didn't happen to notice that Medicare is going broke and that some doctors are turning it down?... or that rich people still keep better insurance on the side and pay out of pocket for things that aren't covered?

Depends on where the doctor's practice is. If his clients are all wealthy, he doesn't need to deal with Medicare. Because his clients have "cadillac insurance".

 

[Xenophon]

Starting to look like the Dems have the votes to pass healthcare. Hopefully, by this time next week it will be a done deal

Really?

Its starting to look like they will never have the votes, and if it does pass it will be repealed and never come into law.

That is what it looks like.

 

[DE3]

This is from Democrats, the pollsters for Carter and Clinton.

Actually, it is from former democrats. The main author Patrick H. Caddell , has a long history of making this criticism of the party.

In 1988, Caddell left the Democratic Party after an acrimonious lawsuit with a Democratic consulting firm. Republicans would often cite Caddell's tirades against the Democratic Party on the floor of the House and the Senate.

His analysis on polls and campaign issues often puts him at odds with the current leadership of the Democratic Party. He has been criticized as often attacking Democratic politicians and predicting the downfall of the Democratic party. Critics point out that he has defended the Bush administration by claiming that Republicans did not exploit the issue of gay marriage in the presidential election of 2004. He also denounced Democrats in the House who voted against the Palm Sunday Compromise, which sought to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, as "cold blooded". Caddell is a regular guest on Fox News.