I Don't Know About the Rest Of You... But I'm Having A Really, Really Hard Time

[ChiciB1]

trying to figure what the hell is going on. I'm trying to take so much in, Democrats NOT backing Obama, Repukes throwing a WRENCH into EVERYTHING Obama proposes and then MSM with a drum beat of some sort. One day it's one way, the next it's another.

All I know is that I'm feeling a "pinch" BIG TIME, and don't really understand the new Health Care Proposal, or the OMNIBUS completely and I'm just plain AFRAID. Am I correct in saying that Medicare is going to be cut?? My husband was a Union Worker and we have a relatively good plan even IF it's an HMO. I would like National Health care, but if it's going to hurt Medicare I'm not sure I'm on board. But health care is just one thing I'm getting more and more screwed up about. Too many "pundits" talking and I don't know if up is down or down is up!!

Anyone else feel like I do??

[Cant trust em]

1. I'll say one thing for the republicans

They don't go anywhere unless it's with the whole team. No one gets off message.

Except for Michael Steele. That guy is just a barrel full of laughs.

[ChiciB1]

7. My Point Exactly... It's March In Step No Matter What!!! n/t

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's an ugly repeat of '93. nt

[Deja Q]

3. Except I don't think President Obama is as... wishy-washy as Bill Clinton was.

Remember Obama's first address; he pointed out how much he had already tolerated (from the Republicans). I don't recall former President Clinton doing that.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Bill Clinton was elected in a year in which R's added to their congressional numbers. nt

[MADem]

6. Yep. It's impossible to compare the two eras in a blow by blow fashion.

As you noted, not only was the makeup of the Congress, and the trajectory of it as well, substantially different, but there was no "nahn wun wun" in the backstory, no wars, and Clinton followed a benign-by-comparison Bush. It wouldn't have 'done' for Clinton to get all shirty so early out of the gate. There's sixteen years of getting shit on in terms of justification at this stage of the game.

It was a different time back then...yes, the GOP were bastards, but their mendacity was almost NAIVE back in those days....!

[ProSense]

10. Actually, when Clinton took office there were 57 Democrats in the senate

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

The Dems lost nine seats in the 104th Congress.

[Captain Hilts]

14. The trend in '92 was fewer Dems, except for the election of Bubba. The country was still...

shifting right.

[ProSense]

15. Frankly, the Dems were responsible for a lot of that.

They failed to capitalize on the Reagan/Bush backlash:

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

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

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

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

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

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

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

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

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

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

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

[Captain Hilts]

17. But with shits like Sam Nunn as Dem leaders, it sucked. nt

[ProSense]

18. Well, now there are different shits. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

19. I was so pissed at Reid's "I don't work for him" crap. nt

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

21. Copy that.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Not like Sam Nunn, Jim Exon, and Richard Shelby, and Ben Campbell

Two of those guys became Republicans right after 1994. The only Democrat comparable to them is Ben Nelson and I think even those guys make Nelson look left of center. It's a different political map now than in 1992 because states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana are now blue.

[Clio the Leo]

5. You're fine unless you make over $170,000 a year....

.... those are the seniors who will be effected by the Medicare hike. And even then, you're still fine because you're making over $170,000 a year. :)

In order to raise $8.1 billion for the health-care fund, the president is going to ask 1.5 million wealthy senior citizens to dig deeper into their pockets to pay more for their own prescription drugs starting in 2011, according to officials.

This affects seniors earning over $170,000 a year who already pay more for Medicare "Part B," which covers doctors' visits, and who will now be asked to pony up more for Medicare "Part D," which covers the prescription drug program created by former President George W. Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/25/budget.healthcare/

And if you ARE one of those people, for crying out loud! Get off of the computer and go BUY something! lol

[ChiciB1]

9. That Figure Doesn't Come Close To My Income... Not EVEN Close!!!

Thanks for the link and information cause my head is spinning like Linda Blair in the Exorcist!!!

We ALL knew it was a MESS going in and was going to be almost overwhelming to get anything done, but I so wish the Repukes and MSM would get off LIMPBALLS! Like he has the ANSWERS!

And then there's the inquiry about what BFEE really did to this country, something I've always wanted done, but will it get done?? Leahy & Conyers are trying some things, but will any of it amount to a hill of beans? This has been a priority for me, but I also understand why Obama may not want to go there. I still feel strongly that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!

My liberalism is showing for sure!

[Jackpine Radical]

8. About the health care thing--

The plan has not yet been fully formulated, but Medicare itself will not be cut, at least not in a way that will hurt recipients. During the Bush years, there was a move to partially privatize Medicare--the so-called Medicare Advantage plans. In these plans, private companies were paid 114% of regular Medicare payments to provide services for the elderly under HMO-style management. Obama is cutting the excess funding out of these plans. Everyone on Medicare will still have the regular Medicare option, and companies will be free to compete to provide health care to the elderly, but they will not be paid a premium above Medicare to do so. Thus the cuts will be to the profits of HMO plans, not to beneficiaries, and the savings will be used to expand coverage to others in ways that are not yet entirely defined.

I think that the most likely outcome of the present negotiations will be a system that leaves the private insurers in the marketplace, but will expand Medicare as a option to everyone. Those under 65 will have to buy in one way or another, possibly through their employers as most of us do now, and maybe with government subsidies for the unemployed or low wage earners. Thus Medicare will become one of the competitive options available to consumers, and the bet (my bet, anyway) is that Medicare will win out in the long run, and will end up being the health care coverage vehicle for most Americans. Medicare operates with about 3% overhead--very efficient--while private insurance companies take about 30% of every dollar for administrative costs and profits.

Actually, if you consider the total that we're paying for health care right now (about 16% of GDP), there is more than enough to pay for everyone if we eliminate the obscene profits and inefficiencies brought about by the insurance companies. For example, I practice in a small outpatient mental health clinic and we have one person in the support staff whose primary job is to fight with the insurance companies over payments. The insurers have a large variety of tricks they keep playing: sending partial payments, "losing" electronically submitted billings, denying services they had previously authorized, ad infinitum, so when you provide a service you never know whether you will be paid, or whether you will get a full payment. Sometimes when you call them, they just put you on Hold and go out to lunch or something. The insurance-company-fighter has to be a special kind of person, with immense patience and the tenacity of a bulldog.

Most providers would gladly take a reduced fee if they could simply be assured that they would receive it without hassle and without battling for it. The problem with single-payer is one of how to get there from here--considering that you would have to totally rebuild the billing systems, re-educate all sorts of people, etc., and do all of this while facing an onslaught of propaganda from an incredibly rich and powerful industry that sees itself fighting for its life--which indeed it would be.

Remember--the rest of the industrialized world provides care for all their people for 8-12% of GDP, not just care for some, at a cost of 16% of GDP like us.

[ChiciB1]

12. Many Doctors Who Take The HMO Medicare Plans Are NOT Happy With It, Or So It Seems

to me. I went out of my service area because there wasn't a specialist around my area that was on my list. I "thought" when I paid the charge that I was going to get 70% back of my charge. After many, many months of trying to get ANY money, it was about 40% that I actually got back.

I saw a Repuke on C-Span this AM, and I have to admit I agree with him, he said that we needed a "centralized" billing center to clear up so much of the mess. What you're talking about when you submit a billing and it goes around the world before it finally gets figured out. Plus, the problem of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

Right now, I'm still dealing with a billing issues that EVERYONE involved with KNOWS what my co-pay is, the doctor, the billing company AND Medicare... but the billing company keeps billing me! I can't tell you how many phone calls I've made to ALL of them, and still it's NOT cleared up! They all agree that the amount I paid was correct, but I keep getting a bill for an extra co-pay amount. Right now I have decided to send a "copy" of ALL the bills I've gotten to everyone and tell them to STICK it. I'm sick of the stupidity!

They all say I'm correct, but still the paper work NEVER gets done!

[Jackpine Radical]

16. I really don't know about the Advantage plans.

Medicare payments are pretty low, actually, and would probably have to be adjusted upward. What's REALLY bad, though, are Medicaid payments. They pay about 1/4 to 1/3 of normal charges where I practice. If you take MA, you lose money on those patients and have to try to make it up on the others. Many providers refuse to take MA at all (including me; I would rather do pro bono work than deal with MA). In many places, for-profit hospitals refused to take MA patients, leaving them to go to the nonprofits, who then sank under the burden of providing services that cost more than they were getting paid.

[ChiciB1]

20. There Are Many Humana Plans That Doctors Don't Like! As I Said I Have

what one could call a "better" HMO Plan BECAUSE it was through a Union. It's a PPO actually, but my daughter & my son-in-law are both critical care nurses and I hear discussing and cussing all the time.

One of the staffers at one of my doctors told me they didn't take "my" Humana, so I paid the full price (the one where I was supposed to get 70% back) to see the doctor. Then after about 6 visits I was told they DID take my insurance. This was another nightmare because I actually OVER-PAID all along, yet even though this began in 2006, it wasn't until recently that they got it figured out.

I went in one day and they told me I owed them $155.00 and then it was a merry-go-round for about a month! Next visit, my doctor wanted to know why I owed a balance!!!! So, I do think there should be a something set up to get answers WHEN NEEDED, and not have to jump through so many hoops!

And then there's BIG PHARMA!!! I don't even want to go there!!!

[ProSense]

11. Obama and the Dems need to remain focused.

Seriously, when people don't want something to happen, the first thing they do is try to create confusion. The media, conservative Democrats and Republicans are all talking (much of it nonsense) at the same time.

[ChiciB1]

13. Focused Is The Operative Word... But Will They?? And There IS Too Much

nonsense going on. If I, as a person who follows politics pretty closely am getting confused, just imagine what those who don't must be thinking!!

This could all come UN-DONE if Obama & Democrats don't stick together! Democrats are famous for going OFF THE FARM, you know!