"It is tempting to join the "Kill the bill" folks, but it would amount to cutting off our noses ..."

[mzmolly]

Experts Affirm That Health Reform Bills Include Important Cost-Control Measures

“The bills contain no shortage of ideas for reforming the delivery system, enhancing the quality of care, and slowing spending. Pretty much every proposed innovation found in the health policy literature these days is encapsulated in these measures.” — John Iglehart, founding editor, Health Affairs

The Senate bill “will reduce long-term deficits, improve the quality of care, and put the nation on a firm fiscal footing. It will help transform the health care system from delivering too much care, to a system that consistently delivers higher-quality, high-value care.” - New England Journal of Medicine, November 11, 2009 — Henry Aaron, Brookings Institution; Katherine Baicker, Harvard University; and 21 other prominent health policy experts

Letter to President Obama, November 17, 2009

“Many, if not most, of the credible ideas that health policy analysts or economists have dreamed up over the past two decades for bending the cost growth curve or improving the quality of American health care are in the bills.” — Timothy S. Jost, professor of health law, Washington and Lee University Health Affairs blog, December 21, 2009
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3075">CBPP.ORG

"It is tempting to join the "Kill the bill" folks, but it would amount to cutting off our noses to spite our faces." ~ Wendell Potter

[johnaries]

1. That's what many of us have been saying. Unfortunately,

some people get stuck on the mandate and/or the Public Option and either can't or refuse to see the truth.

[Donnachaidh]

2. so -- LIST the new regulations and cost care bits

Posting what amounts to PR scripts still doesn't point out the *real* cost-cutting bits that are being claimed.

LIST THEM. PROVE the naysayers wrong.

[polpilot]

3. O.K. I'll list them. #1-All Giveaways to the insurance companies for their 'policies' have to be in

the form of 'electronic payments' to the healthcare companies. The U.S Treasury will give a master key to the U.S.Treasury to top insurance companies in case they need more money 'after hours'. #2 Americans who don't have a health insurance will get one (probably one like I have, not worth a shit for anything, in fact..hell they can have my 'coverage' #3 Any health insurance agreements have to be reviewed by the healthcare insurance lobbyists. I think that about does it.

[mzmolly]

7. There are hundreds of pages

of new regulations in the senate bill alone.

I've given people a start on various analysis here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7678974&mesg_id=7679340

Also, Maria Cantwell has written about provisions that are included in the Senate package:

http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=321158

The following is a summary of Cantwell’s reforms which are included in the bill, many will directly address cost:

· Basic Plan: Gives all 50 states the option to negotiate directly with health insurers to provide high quality health care coverage at a lower cost. The plan, which would fully fund Washington state’s Basic Health program, directs money to participating states and lets them use their purchasing power to negotiate with private insurance carriers. The annual cost of a typical individual plan would be $4,100. That’s 30 percent less than the $5,850 the same plan would cost in today’s private market.

· Basic Plan, Short-term Fix: The main provisions of the bill, including the Basic Plan, do not take effect until 2014. For that reason, Cantwell authored a provision to provide critical short-term relief for Washington state. The bill allows the state to apply for federal funding that would cover two-thirds of the cost of the state’s Basic Health Plan until 2014. The state would be eligible for grants of up to $180 million per year.

· Medicare reform: Establishes a “value-based index” to reward doctors for providing high quality, efficient, and coordinated care. The measure replaces the current system that rewards practitioners for ordering often redundant or unnecessary tests and procedures, contributing to an estimated $120 billion per year in wasted spending. The value-based index will particularly benefit Washington state patients and providers by ending Medicare’s practice of paying more to high-cost states.

· Long Term Care: The bill includes $1.1 billion that will help seniors in need of long-term care who prefer to remain in their homes. Home-based care is 70 percent less expensive than nursing home care.

· Primary Care: The bill includes measures to expand the number of medical students pursuing careers as primary care physicians. Primary care doctors can play a significant role in cutting health care costs by skillfully coordinating and overseeing patient care. But these care-givers are underpaid in our current system. The measure expands training capacity for primary care physicians and includes incentives for medical students who opt for a career in primary care.

· Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs): Serving as the middlemen between health insurance plans, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and pharmacies, PBMs manage most of the prescriptions filled in the United States but are the only unregulated area of the health insurance industry. Cantwell’s proposal requires reporting by PBMs to ensure that savings from drug price negotiations are passed on to consumers and not contributing more to pharmaceuticals’ bottom lines.

I will not do your research for you, however. Google health care and search for "cost controls" or "regulation" if you like.

[eridani]

29. None of those points have anything to do with cost controls

The insurance ratfuckers charge us whatever they like, our tax dollars subsidize the cost for some, and they retain the right to refuse to pay on claims.

[mzmolly]

36. That's just plain false.

You couldn't have read the info I posted above and state what you just did with any integrity.

Sorry, I'll take the word of the professional, impartial policy analysts I've noted above over that of emotive, cynical DU-ers.

[eridani]

39. "But FAMOUS PERSON said"

--is not an argument.

[mzmolly]

44. But JANE HAMSHIRE said ...

As I said in another thread

Familiarize yourself with some analysis from:

Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/health%20ca...

The CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

The Kaiser Foundation:

http://healthreform.kff.org /

And perhaps most importantly the CBPP

http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=32

Experts Affirm That Health Reform Bills Include Important Cost-Control Measures

“The bills contain no shortage of ideas for reforming the delivery system, enhancing the quality of care, and slowing spending. Pretty much every proposed innovation found in the health policy literature these days is encapsulated in these measures.”

— John Iglehart, founding editor, Health Affairs

New England Journal of Medicine, November 11, 2009

The Senate bill “will reduce long-term deficits, improve the quality of care, and put the nation on a firm fiscal footing. It will help transform the health care system from delivering too much care, to a system that consistently delivers higher-quality, high-value care.”

— Henry Aaron, Brookings Institution; Katherine Baicker, Harvard University;

and 21 other prominent health policy experts

Letter to President Obama, November 17, 2009

“Many, if not most, of the credible ideas that health policy analysts or economists have dreamed up over the past two decades for bending the cost growth curve or improving the quality of American health care are in the bills.”

— Timothy S. Jost, professor of health law, Washington and Lee University

Health Affairs blog, December 21, 2009

But "erdani says" is superior? I don't think so.

[eridani]

50. "Bending the cost curve" is a specific disavowal of actual regulation

It means that you give up on the goal of getting our costs down to what the rest of the developed world pays. "Put the nation on a firm fiscal footing" = the bill will reduce costs to government by fucking over the population and transferring those costs to individuals.

Jane Hamsher is quoting polls. What is wrong with the polls?

[mzmolly]

54. Oh

bull crap. Jane Hamshire is cherry picking polls, and I'm calling her out on it.

Goodnight :hi:

[eridani]

62. The analysis of the lack of real regulation is mine, not Jane's n/t

[eridani]

130. That is my analysis, not hers. n/t

[Marr]

4. If you want to see these corporate shills escort their party right back into the wilderness,

then pray they pass this shitty bill.

Face it-- Obama had an opportunity to do real healthcare reform, and he chose to triangulate and sculpt a corporate-friendly PR victory instead. People don't want it. Force it on them, and they are going to despise you anew every month when they get that bill.

[mzmolly]

10. I want to see expanded access to medical care.

The senate and house bills provides that.

http://www.kff.org/

[dflprincess]

19. No they don't

The large out of pocket expenses both bills allow will see to it that people will still not be able to afford to see a doctor.

The number of uninsured will drop because people are forced to contribute to the insurance companies (who, in turn, will send members of Congress their cut of the "contributions") but the number of underinsured will continue to grow as will the number of people whose health care bills drive them to bankrupcty and who die before they should because they do not have access to timely health care.

There was a commentary in yesterday's Star Tribune written by a doctor who sees the damage high copays and deductibles cause and nothing in either of these bills will change the situations he's talking about.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/83682912.html?elr=KArksc8P <img src=

As our policymakers work on broad-scale health care reform from the halls of government, many physicians have joined patients in demanding change.

As a neurologist who sees multiple sclerosis (MS) patients every day, I am worried that without reform, our current system will kill preventive care and continue driving up the cost of care. I know this because patients too often tell me that they aren't taking their medications or aren't following my advice for maintaining their health because they can't afford skyrocketing copays.

Copays are the fixed, out-of-pocket costs required by health insurers to be paid by patients for services such as exams at a clinic, outpatient procedures, physical therapy and the filling of prescriptions. These services are often preventive in nature -- for instance, preventing paralysis that would otherwise need constant, long-term medical attention, or preventing hospital stays with visits to the clinic for doctor-recommended checkups.

The idea behind copays is to reduce wasteful treatments by patients and health care providers, thereby reducing costs. But some copays have gotten out of control. Preventive medications for MS patients fall into the "fourth payment tier," which are more expensive to produce because they are naturally, rather than chemically, derived. These treatments prevent MS attacks and lessen long-term disability.

Insurance companies recently introduced this highest-priced tier and are categorizing more medications into the fourth tier all the time. In many cases, the copay for an MS medication can jump from $25 to $200 for a one-month supply, effectively denying patients access to needed medicines and preventive care.

Rather than reducing costs, high copays increase total costs to the health care system. That's because a patient who is denied access to a needed medication has to see his or her doctor to come up with an alternative treatment. This results in lost time and productivity for the patient, and it wastes the time of the health care provider, who could be helping another patient.

The doctor who wrote this does mention that Franken is sponsoring a seperate bill that would limit a person's out of pocket prescription costs to $200/month for one drug and $500/month for all prescriptions. I suppose Al means well, but if he thinks most people have an extra $500/month he's as badly out of touch as the rest of D.C.
$

[mzmolly]

23. Yes they do.

An op ed about the current situation we're in is not as convincing as the vast amount of data I've looked at from independent sources that confirm the bill in question will be a vast improvement. Wendell Potter included:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/why-im-not-joining-the-ca_b_403176.html

But even if all the problems of the Senate bill can't be fixed in conference, Congress must send the president a bill to sign -- and soon. My position on this puts me at odds with many of the wonderful reform advocates I have met in the six months that have passed since I switched sides in this national debate -- going from being a spokesman for the health insurance industry to being a vocal critic of it -- in testimony before Senator Jay Rockefeller's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee last June.

Over the past few days, some organizations that have worked so hard for many years for comprehensive reform, especially those that have advocated for a single payer system like Canada's, have joined groups on the opposite end of the political and philosophical spectrum in calling for defeat of the legislation. "Kill the Bill" is in the subject line of many emails I've been getting lately.

I understand their frustration, but I believe that when they stop and think about the real consequences of what they demanding, they will realize that for all its disappointing compromises and flaws, even the Senate-passed bill should be viewed as a foundation that can be built upon in years to come. Ted Kennedy, who advocated for a "Medicare for All" type system before many of today's activists were born, would truly have been proud of this beginning. He would not have liked everything about the bill, that's for sure, but he understood what it means to live in a political world and that compromises -- even big ones -- almost always have to be made on the journey toward an ultimate destination.

We will not be arriving at that final destination with the bill that reaches the president, but we have started the journey. Progressives must keep in mind that even leaving the station has not been a possibility for 15 years.

MOST people are paying "more than they can afford" now, for employer based coverage. I'm not sure why we're suddenly outraged when we're trying to expand coverage to others who will have to pay essentially like amounts.

I'm with Potter. We have to start the journey.

[dflprincess]

70. A physcian who is currently treating patients and sees the damage high out pocket costs cause

- costs that both these bills still allow - has expertise in how things work in the real world. Not how they will work in theory with the insurance company bail out.

[mzmolly]

71. Do you have a link to the data on out of pocket expenses?

I'm interested in learning more as I've heard many people make this claim and I don't know how we can given there will be many options to choose from. I'm guessing you're talking about the max out of pocket allowed in the reform bill? The worst case scenario? Can't we in good conscious contrast that figure to what out of pocket expenses are now for the uninsured?

[dflprincess]

79. Google high out of pocket healthplans higher costs delayed care

and a lot of articles pop up. I'm just about done with my lunch break so I can't go through them all, but here is a sampling

http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B0F55A550-7E31-4C0D-AAC6-5BCD2DB5A051%7D&DE=

Myth: Consumer-driven health plans will encourage people to get the care that best suits their needs.

Fact: High deductibles and cost sharing shift benefits to the healthy but shift costs to the sick.

A survey from the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that, while people in such plans were more cost conscious, they were twice as likely to report delaying or avoiding care and about three times as likely to report paying a large fraction of their income on health costs as those in comprehensive insurance.

Although employers are allowed to make contributions to health savings accounts, a 2007 survey shows that employers contribute less to HSA-qualified plans compared with other types of plans, shifting higher out-of-pocket expenses to workers which could further deter workers from seeking care.

http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/1001/1001.downstream.html

Research does show that CDHP enrollees clearly demonstrate cost-conscious behavior, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). But several organizations, including the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC), Families U.S.A., the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the Commonwealth Fund, and even the EBRI, say that shifting costs to employees can delay needed treatment. That can mean that when beneficiaries receive care, they are sicker. Delays, then, may raise overall costs.

...However, patient satisfaction is greater among members of traditional plans, and that is related to out-of-pocket costs. And CDHP and HDHP enrollees do report delaying seeking medical care because of costs.”

http://www.ebri.org/publications/ib/index.cfm?fa=ibDisp&content_id=3606

• Higher out-of-pocket costs—Despite similar rates of health care use, individuals with CDHPs and HDHPs are significantly more likely to spend a large share of their income on out-of-pocket health care expenses than those in comprehensive health plans. Two-fifths (42 percent) of those in HDHPs and 31 percent of those in CDHPs spent 5 percent or more of their income on out-of pocket costs and premiums in the last year, compared with 12 percent of those in more comprehensive health plans.

• More missed health care—Individuals with CDHPs and HDHPs were significantly more likely to avoid, skip, or delay health care because of costs than were those with more comprehensive health insurance, with problems particularly pronounced among those with health problems or incomes under $50,000. About one-third of individuals in CHDPs (35 percent) and HDHPs (31 percent) reported delaying or avoiding care, compared with 17 percent of those in comprehensive health plans.

And, the link in my post above, will take you the the Op/Ed by the doctor who is seeing this first hand.

[mzmolly]

82. This info you've provided applies to the current issues we're facing.

The legislation attempts to change the situation we're in. Have you visited the Kaisier Foundation and looked at the info they provide on both bills? You can do comparisons on the bills here: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm For example one can look at the "overall approach to expanding access to coverage" or the "expansion of public program" or select one of many other topics.

Here is an overall comparison of the two bills: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf I think pages 9-12 might be of particular interest as they pertain to many of your concerns.

[dflprincess]

87. The info I've provided deals with what happens when people are faced with out of pocket expenses

they can't afford. That won't change with these bills as both allow for some big expenses.

In fact, they allow for higher expenses than do many of the existing CDHPs. They may actually make the situation worse for some people.

I think you need to take another look at the "cost sharing" (the new, cuter name for out of pockets) limits listed in the link you provided. Do you really think a single person whose income is 200% of the poverty level (about $21,00) can afford $1,983 in out of pocket medical expenses? Or someone just over the 400% cap (about $42,000) has a spare $5,000 laying around?

No, they can't afford it and they will put off getting care or filling prescriptions because they can't afford it - just like they do now.

All the coverage in the world won't help you access care if it doesn't pay the bills.

[mzmolly]

89. Do you think anyone feels they can afford

health care coverage? I don't think anyone claimed this bill was the end all. But you have to ask yourself what that person in your scenario is paying NOW. About twice the amount you note. And, that's only if they can obtain coverage. Also, if that person becomes ill, they're at risk of losing everything. Not to mention a week in the hospital would quickly exceed your $1983 figure. Also ask yourself what the person in your scenario would pay for employer based coverage? Probably about the same as they will under the new legislation. About $55 per pay check.

In the 1980's my diabetic, then self employed husband (who was repeatedly denied coverage) found a program that accepted him simply because we were in MN. He paid 50% of his income for catastrophic coverage alone. Roughly $800 a month, to be specific. He had ZERO out of pocket coverage. He decided to go without insurance and eat instead. If this legislation had been available, not only would he be able to obtain coverage for a far lesser amount, (as we did when MN Care became available) he could have remained on his parents policy until the age of 26.

Note at the bottom of the KFF calculator it states: The proposal also makes available a catastrophic policy for young adults and those exempted from the requirement to obtain insurance that is less comprehensive and has a lower premium than other coverage. It is not reflected in the calculator. Some subsidized people are also eligible for reduced cost sharing, in addition to premium subsidies. These are not illustrated in the calculator.

[dflprincess]

100. The amounts I noted do not include premium costs

the amounts noted above are the out of pockets paid for care AFTER you've paid the premium (or your share of it). These bills only provide subsidies for premiums, not cost of care. Employer based plans can have "cost sharing" amounts as high the amount listed.

What you can't quite seem to grasp is that if a person doesn't have an extra $1,900 or $5,000 (depending on income level - up to $10K for a family) extra dollars in the bank, they still won't be able to access care even though they're paying for "coverage". And, if you still can't get care what good does "coverage" do you? I suppose there will still be the bankruptcy option but that doesn't work so well for people with chronic condtions (and yes, there are people who could be bankrupted by a $1,900 medical bill). I know, maybe they can put the out of pockets on a credit card - the other industry that stands to gain from this scam.

[mzmolly]

105. Again

you focus on worst case scenarios and ignore the starting point. The bill is a beginning and it's an improvement over the status quo. What would the person in your scenario do today, if he/she were ill? What would that person pay for medical care, and how?

[dflprincess]

120. The same way they will pay for it now and the way they will continue to pay out of pockets

if this bill is made law - with credit cards or bankruptcy.

You mean actually having to see a doctor is "worse case"? Sure, best case is staying healthy and never having to find out that the insurance you're paying for won't cover your bills. But, it doesn't take much to wind up with a medical bill you can't afford. Sprain your ankle or just have a prescription you need monthly and you may be looking at costs you can't pay.

[mzmolly]

121. It seems

we disagree? ;) I'm done D. Have a nice evening. :pals:

[amandabeech]

99. Yes, and in his last years, Kennedy championed "No Child Left Behind," too.

How's that workin' out for ya?

Kennedy's name lost that magic for me after he went for that monstrosity.

[mzmolly]

106. Had it been a funded

mandate as Kennedy wanted, we might have a better idea.

I'm not a believer in teaching to the test, personally.

[amandabeech]

114. Money would do it.

The entire teach to test mentality is just so wrong.

I come from a family of teachers and have two good friends in the profession now. They have nothing but bad things to say. All but one will get out.

They also are appalled that they and their schools will be judged solely on the test results. Two of them teach in poor schools with lots of kids who don't speak English at all or speak it very haltingly. Those schools need bilingual teachers and just a lot more teachers in general but they don't have the money. One of those schools used to be top rated despite receiving high levels of Title I funding. Now the kids are all 2 to 3 years behind and are not being well served. The teachers and aids are very dedicated, but they are completely overwhelmed. They are doing as much as they can now, and will not get more funding on the competitive basis because they just can't do anymore. I think that Arne Duncan should have to teach a third grade class with 1/2 the students speaking limited English for a year before he even opens his mouth about school funding.

[mzmolly]

116. I agree with the

teachers in your family. But, I don't think that Kennedy can be judged on a single issue that wasn't implemented in the manner he wished.

[amandabeech]

117. It's not my only issue with Kennedy, but I'm always in trouble here on DU

and refuse to discuss some issues.

Actually, I'm looking for another internet home.

[eridani]

30. That's bullshit. We only have access to insurance

They get to keep on refusing to pay claims on a whim.

[mzmolly]

33. Why the "worst case scenario" mantra?

IF insurance companies continue to abuse people at least this bill provides some leverage.

[eridani]

41. With regulation at the state level, there is NO leverage

What was it about "15 states have tried to hold down costs through MLR regulation but have failed abjectly" that you failed to understand?

[mzmolly]

46. The regulation isn't SIMPLY at a state level.

And I live in one of the states noted in the article from last year. :eyes: Contrary to the spin, success with the program has been OUTSTANDING. In fact, the local hc program was the BEST coverage our family has ever had.

[eridani]

51. Well bully for you. My current coverage sucks, and it will suck worse after "reform" n/t

[mzmolly]

55. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

:crazy:

[eridani]

61. How nice for you that you are young and in the 85% of people who will never be expensively sick

The fuckover is only for chronically ill old people who aren't old enough for Medicare. We are just disposable human garbage to the people who have never been expensively sick, and whose opinions about insurancce are worth what their opinions of their fire extinguishers are worth--that is to say not much.

[mzmolly]

72. LOL

You don't know a thing about me or my life or what health conditions my family faces.

[UrbScotty]

66. +1

Are they perfect? HELL NO!! But I find it ridiculous that some people actually want to reject what these bills provide for the sake of sticking with the status quo.

[mzmolly]

78. We finally have a foot in the door

and people want to walk away ... again? I'm befuddled. ;)

:hi:

[Edweird]

5. If "kill the bill" = 'cutting off our nose' then the senate bill = harakiri.

[laughingliberal]

6. +++1000 nt

[polpilot]

8. Next...Beer Insurance...administered by the health insurance companies.

You MUST HAVE a beer insurance card to buy beer, if not, god knows what you'll pay. You present your beer insurance card, get beer, then you get a bill for your beer later (if that particular beer is covered). If you can't afford beer insurance then Obama will pay tax money to the beer insurance compay for a card for you. They can't 'make' more than 30% on the beer unless they figure out a way to (THAT beer isn't covered, you don't need that much beer, other beer is kinda O.K., etc., etc.) If you really, really need beer you can get it from the emergency beer room but then your credit rating is ruined. EVERYBODY should vote for the beer insurance coverage because...well.. you just should.

[mzmolly]

9. It's fun to joke about death

and health care isn't it? We'll let 45,000 people die due to a lack of health coverage because this way, we can 'feel good' about our perfect position, right?

[Edweird]

11. Who is joking? The vast majority of people see what bullshit this regurgitated RW bill is.

So, you can cry on about your imaginary saved lives, while the rest of that live in the real world understand that MORE OF WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM IS NOT A SOLUTION.

You are imagining that the insurance companies will suddenly stop finding ways to weasel out of providing care. They will not. They are in it to make money - and they make money by denying you care.

[mzmolly]

12. The vast majority?

The polls I've seen show two things. 1. Most Americans don't understand the plan and 2. Americans are divided because of that. When question about what's in the bill are broken down, people support it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/december_2009/what_voters_like_about_the_health_care_plan

I imagine that insurance companies will continue to try and weasel yes. But this bill will put a mechanism in place to threaten them with no longer doing business with America, if they don't change their ways.

[Edweird]

13. No, the problem for the administration is that we DO understand.

He was very clear when he campaigned AGAINST mandates. Remember then?

[mzmolly]

14. I do. And I don't care for the idea

of mandates, but I realize that they're part of controlling cost. Not to mention, there are hardship waivers and the max penalty is $750 per year which is very inexpensive when one considers they'll have what amounts to catastrophic health care coverage, in exchange.

[Edweird]

15. Let's see. Obama campaigned on 'no mandates' + 'public option'.

McCain campaigned on 'mandates' + 'no public option'.

Now, here you are trying to convince me of how great it is.

It is not.

The insurance companies are the problem. Literally. This administration has shown an appalling preference for corporations over citizens. Expecting any oversight or penalties for bad actions from the insurance companies is foolish. This is NOT a good thing.

[mzmolly]

16. McCain didn't advocate for the expansion of medicaid,

or subsidies to the middle class to pay for coverage, or forcing coverage for those with a pre-existing conditions, or community medical centers and so on. There is NO comparison between McCain's weak campaign promises and this comprehensive legislation.

http://health-insurance-carriers.com/blog/health-care-john-mccain-vs-barack-obama/

[dflprincess]

22. People need access to preventative and routine care,

not catastrophic care. Preventing access to regular care costs more in the long run and these bills, which do not guarantee access to care, do nothing to control the costs of delayed care.

This is not "comprehensive legislation" - not by a long shot. It's main design is to protect the insurance companies and their profits. Obama now denies that he ever thought a public option was necessary even though he told us it was many times to "keep them honest". Apparently after his closed door meetings with the them, the crooks somehow convinced him they don't need to be "kept honest".

[mzmolly]

24. This from someone who wants health care legislation to die?

What I've indicated is that those who are healthy and don't wish to pay in, will at least have coverage if they become ill under the new legislation. As it is NOW they'll have nothing when they find themselves in need. Killing the bill does nothing to advance "preventive and routine care". Quite the contrary.

Sorry I have to go with the independent experts and analysts I've noted below vs. those with an idealistic agenda:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7678974&mesg_id=7679340

[dflprincess]

69. No, I want the Insurance Company Profit Protection Act to die

if Congress every comes up with a bill that actually guarantees access to health care, I'll support it.

[mzmolly]

73. Sounds downright Naderesque. Either that or it's

Kucinich rhetoric? Wellstone would have looked at the big picture. He reminded us that the differences make a difference. This bill will make a difference, if it passes.

[dflprincess]

81. Only to the insurance companies who will be handed millions of new victims to fleece (n/t)

[mzmolly]

83. As I've said, that's a talking point.

See here for a side by side comparison of the two bills we're trying to reconcile. Either is a vast improvement. http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf

[PassingFair]

92. You lost this argument when you had Potter "channeling" Kennedy.

Now you're digging it into the ground by channeling Wellstone
yourself.

Stop it.

[mzmolly]

93. I didn't have Potter channel anyone.

I quoted his article. Additionally, I'm guessing Kennedy's wife knows more about about him than you? No, you "stop it".

[PassingFair]

94. I don't care what his wife says, either.

Speaking for dead people is not quite cricket.

And it was reprehensible for you to claim that
Wellstone would approve of this "compromise".

[mzmolly]

95. I don't care if you agree.

I've followed his career closely as a person who lived in MN and helped work to elect him.

It seems I've struck a nerve? Good.

[PassingFair]

98. OK Kreskin.

What would Lincoln say?

[mzmolly]

103. I can tell you what Dean said.

I didn't work to elect Lincoln. I haven't an opinion on his would be position. ;)

[PassingFair]

109. I already know what Dean says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112118207

I wouldn't presume to speak for the dead though.

[mzmolly]

111. He also says to pass the Senate bill and improve it in reconciliation.

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/86972/

"Dean says he's optimistic that Democratic leaders in Washington will adopt an aggressive strategy that will result in the passage of a meaningful health reform bill this year."

I wouldn't presume to speak for the dead either. But I may offer an opinion on what a politician may do given past actions.

Wellstone Pushes Health Care Plan

Congress should guarantee all Americans the right to quality, affordable and comprehensive health care coverage, US Sen. Paul Wellstone said at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee on Oct. 4. The Minnesota Democrat pressed his universal health care proposal, "The Health Security for All Americans Act" (S. 2888), which was introduced this summer and is endorsed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the nation's largest health care union with 1.4 million members.

"In this time of unparalleled economic prosperity, every American certainly ought to have the right to see a doctor when they need to, a doctor of their own choosing," said Wellstone. "It is high time that the right to quality, comprehensive health care become a reality for all Americans, regardless of their wealth or income. And it is time that all Americans be free from the fear of catastrophic illness wiping them out financially or of being denied the care they need."

The bill would allow states to decide how to provide affordable and comprehensive health care coverage for all Americans, but it would insure the uninsured, guarantee affordable health care by limiting out-of-pocket expenses and guarantee a minimum benefit package equal to that enjoyed by members of Congress. It also provides strong patient protections.

"The health insurance industry, using all of its clout and its legions of lobbyists, took universal health care off the nation's agenda. But with this proposal, and with the grass-roots power of organized working men and women throughout the country, we are going to put health care for all Americans back on the agenda," Wellstone said.

"Our plan tells states and governors to choose their way to universal coverage, and then backs up that promise with the federal support necessary to help get them there. This plan is both decentralized and comprehensive," said Wellstone. "We insist on minimum standards, the same ones members of Congress enjoy. We set the national goal of quality, affordable, comprehensive, universal coverage, but we invite the states to tailor it to the needs of their people. This approach is flexible, but we do not give up on the principle that every American has a right to affordable, dignified health care."

http://www.populist.com/00.19.dispatches.html

[SanchoPanza]

115. Certainly

And the billions of dollars for community health centers do that.

Of course that was put in the legislation by a soulless defender of for-profit insurance companies who voted for the final bill and goes by the name Bernie Sanders, so your mileage may vary in supporting an expansion of affordable preventative and routine care.

[dflprincess]

124. Funding for Community Health Centers could and should be passed as a seperate bill

there's no need to screw us all over to extend the services these clinics provide.

[SanchoPanza]

126. Except you're not being screwed over.

Unless you're in the top income bracket and a hypochondriac, in which case you feel justified having an overpriced insurance policy, or you work for a for-profit insurer that will have to compete in a market far more friendlier to non-profits. If either of those are the case then, yes, you're "screwed" in the sense that you're better off with the status quo than the legislation.

But "we" are not screwed, because I and most people don't fit into those categories.

Anyway, I'm neither opposed to making the CHC funding a separate bill nor am I opposed to the legislation as a whole, so it doesn't matter to me.

[eridani]

35. They despise mandates, and they despise the excise tax

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/12/cbs-poll-for-many-health-care-reform-does-not-go-far-enough/

A new CBS News poll finds that a significant plurality of Americans do not feel reform has gone far enough. It also shows that overall support for Obama’s handling of health care reform has dropped to an all-time low of just 36%.

The most interesting questions in the poll were about whether people think reform went far enough or went too far: When asked about trying to “provide health insurance to as many Americans as possible,” 32% said that the plan goes too far, 35% said it doesn’t go far enough, and 22% said it is about right.
Asked about trying to “control costs,” 24% said that reform proposals go too far, 39% said it doesn’t go far enough, and 21% said it is about right.

And, when asked about “trying to regulate the health insurance industry,” the breakdown was 27% in the go too far camp, 43% saying the plan doesn’t go far enough, and 18% thinking it was about right.

Interesting, to me, is the segment of people that thought efforts to expand coverage are just about right. I find this perplexing. I can understand that some people who are opposed reform and spending in general would think the bill went too far, but I find it hard to believe anyone would think this bill did the right amount to expand coverage. Unlike cost control or regulation, the number of uninsured covered is very quantifiable. If you believe in universal coverage, a bill that only reduces the number of uninsured by roughly 60% clearly, by definition, does not go far enough. I find it hard to believe there is a large number of Americans who only want significantly expanded coverage, but not universal coverage for all Americans. I think it does show how effective the Democrats’ efforts to falsely depict the bill as “universal coverage” have been. The fact that some 25 million people in this country would still be without health insurance is probably not well known by the majority of Americans.

What I think is truly fascinating is how many people believe this health care reform legislation will not do enough to regulate the health insurance industry. Promising that reform would “keep the insurance industry honest” and end their bad practices has been one of the biggest Democratic selling points for reform. Even 26% of self-identified Republicans think reform does not go far enough in trying to regulate the insurance companies. That is shocking given the GOP’s long history of pushing for deregulation. Over a quarter of Republicans think a partisan Democratic bill meant to regulate an industry does not impose enough regulation.

The poll indicates that a large portion of Americans feel this bill has been way too friendly to the insurance companies. Insurance companies are not popular, and they are probably one of only a few industries people are actually clamoring to see face much tougher regulation. It seems substantially increasing the checks on the insurance industry would be the best way to improve the popularity of health care reform. Democrats are already viewed as taking the side of the bankers in the bailout; they don’t want to go into the 2010 election also being seen as being too friendly to the health insurance industry.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/14/health.care.poll/

As House and Senate Democrats try to merge two separate health care reform bills, a new national poll suggests that when it comes to paying for the legislation, Americans favor provisions in the House bill over those in the Senate version.

According to the poll, 61 percent of the public favor the House provision, which taxes people with high incomes regardless of the kind of health insurance they have. Twenty-nine percent favor the Senate provision, which raises taxes on high-quality health insurance plans, regardless of the amount of money made by the people covered by those plans.

"A tax on the wealthy is obviously most popular with lower-income Americans, but it is also the preference of people making $100,000 a year or more," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Fifty percent of people in that income level prefer a tax on higher-income Americans to a tax on high-quality health care plans. Thirty-six percent of them prefer the tax on insurance plans rather than the income-based tax."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted January 8-10, with 1,021 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.



http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/15/republicans-dont-need-to-run-on-repealing-the-whole-bill

Republicans will probably run on repealing just the deeply unpopular provisions, like the individual mandate and the tax on health insurance benefits. We know those are winning messages because Obama campaigned on them in 2008.

The GOP might call the bill a bundle of corrupt promises masquerading as reform. They can point to the sweetheart deal for drug companies, the huge subsidies given to the private insurance companies, the deal cut with the hospitals, and the special carve-out for unions. Republicans will also be able to make a big deal about the lack of promised transparency and the many other broken promises from Obama about health care.

I can even picture Republicans attacking Democrats for passing a bill that lacks “Republican solutions” like tort reform and drug re-importation. Yes Republicans can now steal the mantle of being the party that supports drug re-importation because Obama killed it on the Senate floor. Some clever Republicans in bluer districts might even run a campaign on “fixing” the bill by removing all of the Democrats’ sweetheart deals and corporate giveaways.

The only defense for a deeply compromised bill is to have it in effect so people can judge for themselves if the benefits outweigh the negatives. The problem is, the bill does not really help anyone for four years. Democrats will have almost no immediate tangible positives to point to as a justification for their votes.

Between now and 2014, Republicans will point to every big premium increase, every higher co-pay, and every spike in drug prices as proof that “Democrats failed on health care.” Fair or not, the Republicans might start placing the blame for every new problem with our health care system at the feet of Democrats.

Democrats allowed a handful of powerful special interests and conservative Democrats to kill all the most popular elements in the bill. The public option, Medicare buy-in, drug re-importation, repeal of the anti-trust exemption, cheaper drugs for Medicare with direct drug price negotiations were all removed.

This is not meant to be a doomsday prediction or a campaign manual for Republicans (they already know how to run against this bill). This is meant to be a massive warning to Democrats. All year, I have been trying to warn Democrats in Congress. They are about to commit political suicide by over-promising, under-delivering, and making themselves appear tools of the corporations ripping off regular Americans. If you say you are going to reform health care you better reform health care.

Health care reform is not unpopular because of attack campaigns against it. No amount of attack commercials was able to really dent the strong support for a public option. The bill is unpopular because Democrats kept removing every popular idea from the bill. Democrats are driving themselves straight off a cliff. They need to change course. Having the President say the only thing the very unpopular bill needs to save Democrats in 2010 is a good PR campaign is not helping the party.

[mzmolly]

37. FDL

is not an impartial arbiter. Dean and Potter have tossed their lunacy under the bus, with good reason. "They" want "us" to work out a health care reform package. Over 60% according to the latest polls. "They" also like the bill when theyknow what it involves. ;)

[eridani]

45. What is it that you disagree with about the ORIGINAL SOURCES

--cited by FDL? They hate the bill when they know that it involves excise taxes and mandates.

[mzmolly]

48. What is it that you don't understand about

push polling? http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/09/poll_finds_publ.html

The poll also found that the public overwhelming supports several provisions that are facing stiff opposition in Congress: 68% of Americans back a mandate that all adult citizens be required to buy insurance, 67% want an employer mandate requiring companies to offer insurance to their employees, and 59% would support “having health insurance companies pay a tax for offering very expensive policies.”

We can play the poll game all night.

[eridani]

52. The polls cited by FDL were from January, not last September

Union households in MA voted for Brown mainly because of the excise tax.

[mzmolly]

56. I'd need to see independent analysis confirming your assertion.

However, the excise tax is negotiable if we get to reconciliation. The house has said they want that nixed.

Again, goodnight. :hi:

[eridani]

63. If they nix that and remove the antii-trust exemption--

--and put in some form of public option, I could live with the final product.

[mzmolly]

74. I'm glad to hear that Erdani.

:hi: The Dems are working on these things. Some states will have a public option at their choosing with federal funding. Hopefully if the bill passes, it will work as a model for others.

[dflprincess]

20. So now, instead of having 45,000 die because they're unisured

they can join those who die because they're underinsured.

This bill will leave at least 15 million uninsured when it goes into effect and the CBO says a total of 19 million will be uninsured by 2017 so even with this "reform" the number of uninsured will grow while the insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank.

[mzmolly]

25. If that were to happen

we'd be in a position to do something about it. You claim to be an expert, but you don't seem aware of very basic protections the bill offers. Why? As for the 15-19 million, this is an estimate of the number of people who will not buy in. At least they'll have coverage when they need it. Again the bill is a start and those numbers beat 45 million, who can't get any coverage when they're ill.

[eridani]

32. They will still die, only they get to be poorer first n/t

[mzmolly]

34. Bull

crap. Are you saying that employer based coverage doesn't save lives today?

[eridani]

43. It didn't save Nataline Sarkisian's life

And shitty underinsurance paying only 60% of costs is a lot worse than what the Sarkisians had.

[mzmolly]

49. Unfortunately, Nataline died

before reform so your point is moot. She had no leverage, no government body to call, no oversight period. A shame that you wish to continue such a system.

[eridani]

64. That will not change after "reform"

The legislation says no recission, but where does it say that they have to pay any given claim?

[mzmolly]

75. They don't have to pay for a nose job

but I'm certain they'll have to cover related claims. I bet the language can be found in the 400 pages of regulation Republicans are bitching about. IF they continue to screw people later, we'll have a mechanism in place to challenge them. As it is now, families have no where to turn.

[eridani]

129. There is not one single line mandating that insurance companies pay claims, period

This means that Nataline Sarkisian is just as dead after "reform"

[spanone]

17. k&r

[Robb]

18. I'm kicking this.

It's been an interesting day. This is the second time I've found myself vigorously nodding my head for a post by someone it really seems I absolutely never, ever agree with. :)

DU is quite a place. It's good to be reminded. Good post, mz. :thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

21. And I'll kick to that.

:)

:thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

27. Hey E!

:hi:

[EFerrari]

67. Nice thread, mzmolly.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

90. Thanks E.

:D

[mzmolly]

26. LOL

Thanks Robb. :pals: I'm not an ideologue. I'm sure I confuse many with my bizarre open mind - ehem. ;)

[eridani]

28. The senate bill doesn't have any regulations worth warm spit.

Advocates of passing some form of the health care “reform” measures on the table as of January 2010 are claiming that a fresh new regulatory regime will control costs to the point where imposing mandates on everyone to buy overpriced underinsurance would be justified. This claim rests mainly on four features—

• An end to refusing policies and price discrimination for people with pre-existing conditions
• An end to recissions of existing policies when people get expensively sick
• Immediate sunshine on price gouging to discourage excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases
• Requiring premium refunds if insurance companies exceed a specified medical loss ratio (MLR)

Unfortunately, none of these proposals, however helpful in and of themselves, will have any effect whatsoever on controlling health care costs.

Ending pre-existing condition discrimination

For one thing, the Senate bill Ensign Amendment (1), effectively eliminates this policy by allowing insurance companies to offer discounts for people meeting certain “wellness” goals. Even if that amendment fails to make it into the final bill, there is nothing in the legislation to restrict insurance companies from using this as a justification to jack their premiums sky-high for everybody. For another, all versions of reform retain the policy of charging older people two to five times more, and age certainly has to qualify as a pre-existing condition. Also, there is no mention of what recourse you have should you be turned down for having a bad credit record.

Ending recissions

That would be nice, and I really wish that the legislation as written actually said that. What it does say is that recissions will be eliminated except in the case of fraud. Can somebody please explain why the insurance companies will not be able to drive a whole fleet of very large trucks through that loophole? And there is no mention of what happens when you get dropped because you are unable to afford the premium one month.

A huge problem with the Senate bill is that it leaves regulation to the states, which for all practical purposes is not regulation at all. California has a law against recissions already, but they are not enforcing it at the moment because they can’t afford to.

The sunshine provision

It’s astonishing that anyone could call this regulation and still keep a straight face. What it amounts to is a list of very naughty boys and girls. And they’d better watch out, because if they don’t straighten up and fly right, they’re going to wind up on that very same list again next year.

Medical loss ratio requirements

Unfortunately, 15 states either have these requirements now or have had them in the past (2), and they have not had even the slightest effect on escalating health care costs. Of course it’s helpful for some people to get premium rebates, but despite that, the cost of premiums keeps on skyrocketing, 45,000 a year keep dying for lack of the money to pay for health care, and 300,000+ keep going bankrupt due to medical bills (the majority of whom had insurance that was mostly better than the strictly catastrophic underinsurance that will be mandated under “reform”).

Locking the barn door after the horse gets away is not regulation in any sense of the word, as demonstrated by the following real life example.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sarkisian:

We were sorry to hear that your daughter Nataline died because CIGNA denied your claim for her liver transplant. However, you will be glad to know that we have analyzed CIGNA’s medical loss ratio and that all of their customers are entitled to premium refunds. Isn’t that wonderful?

Yours truly,
Dr. Pangloss

Another possibility—allowing lawsuits against insurance companies for claims denial

None of the current proposals have any restrictions whatsoever against denials of particular claims, and it is this practice that is a major cause of so many deaths and bankruptcies. People are not allowed to sue companies for denying claims. Representative Jim McDermott (WA-07) is drafting an amendment which would allow such lawsuits. I think it’s a very good idea, but it suffers from the same problem as attempting regulation by mandating specific medical loss ratios—the remedy comes too late to do any good. Mr. and Mrs. Sarkisian would undoubtedly appreciate the money if they sued CIGNA and won, but they would surely prefer that their daughter had gotten the treatment she needed in the first place.

In addition, legal remedies generally increase health care costs. This is already true of medical malpractice lawsuits (even though the cost increases as a cause of our high per capita medical costs are vastly overrated by the tort reform crowd). In no other developed country do people constantly make use of the legal system to get the money needed to pay for the ongoing medical bills necessitated by poor medical outcomes. Note that this motivation to sue is exactly the same regardless of whether or not such outcomes were caused by actual malpractice. The reason for this is that those extra costs are automatically paid by societies which guarantee health care as a right, and therefore there is no need for anyone to initiate a tort lawsuit in order get the money to pay them.

(One of the reasons that we lead the developed world in medical error rates (3) is that private employer-based insurers are constantly forcing people to change providers with their endlessly mutating preferred provider lists. Nothing in the proposed legislation deals with this issue.)

Real regulation

Because the largest risk pools will always be the cheapest, health insurance will always trend toward being a monopoly. Wherever natural monopolies exist, society absolutely must regulate them so that citizens do not get ripped off for huge sums of money. We learned this more than a hundred years ago with respect to electrical power grids. At that time, many publicly owned utilities were established and the remainder were put under strict regulation by public utility commissions. When historical amnesia finally set in during the last years of the 20th century, deregulation insured that Enron and Reliant were able to rob energy consumers on the west coast of billions of dollars during a fake “energy crisis”. The corporate-controlled media rarely pointed out that cities with municipally owned utilities didn’t have any brownouts during the “crisis”. All American health insurance companies are Enron. Just as Enron withheld energy from the market to drive up prices and profits, so do insurance companies deny care in order to increase profits.

There is no such thing as health care reform without strict regulation of health care costs. It can be done by outright government ownership of the health care delivery system (Britain, Scandinavia), government monopoly of health insurance (Canada, Taiwan), or strict government regulation of private insurance (the Netherlands, France, Japan). The third method can certainly work as well as the first two in practice—too bad that nothing in current “reform” proposals comes remotely close to that.

Real regulation of mandated private insurance in the Netherlands results in policies that cost 100 euros/month/adult ($95-$145 depending on exchange rates), with no deductibles, no co-pays and no age rating. In addition, many countries regulating private health insurance also directly control provider prices. In 1996, my husband got an emergency root canal in the Netherlands for 100 guilders, or $25 American. In Japan, an overnight hospital stay costs the equivalent of $20. And yes indeed, the number of zeros in those prices are perfectly correct, though they could probably stand to be raised and in fact may have been by now.

Mussolini once said, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Without a public option open to anyone and without real regulation, that definition applies to the mandatory purchase of overpriced underinsurance. It’s certainly true that, given the hugely complex nature of the legislation, it does include a number of useful provisions, mostly related to expansion and improvement of Medicare and Medicaid. In my opinion, these useful proposals are analogous to an expensive balsamic vinegar dressing being poured all over a poison ivy salad. Why can’t we just keep the dressing in its bottle and buy it separately?

1 http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/514042/the_ensign_healthcare_loophole
2 http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/medical-loss-ratio.pdf
3 http://www.truthout.org/111908HA

[mzmolly]

31. Two of your articles are outdated and don't

apply to the conversation.

But even if all the problems of the Senate bill can't be fixed in conference, Congress must send the president a bill to sign -- and soon. ... Ted Kennedy, who advocated for a "Medicare for All" type system before many of today's activists were born, would truly have been proud of this beginning. He would not have liked everything about the bill, that's for sure, but he understood what it means to live in a political world and that compromises -- even big ones -- almost always have to be made on the journey toward an ultimate destination.

We will not be arriving at that final destination with the bill that reaches the president, but we have started the journey. Progressives must keep in mind that even leaving the station has not been a possibility for 15 years. ~ Wendell Potter

This bill is a strong beginning, it is not the end all.

[eridani]

38. That is an assertion, not an argument

The OP and this post is nothing but non-rational appealing to authority. But FAMOUS NAME said.....!

[mzmolly]

40. This from the person with the Fire Dog Lake file ready to copy and paste?

It's not about "famous name" said, it's about what SEVERAL EXPERTS IN THE AREA OF HEALTH POLICY ANALYSIS have said. Read the OP.

[eridani]

47. So why do you just cite their arguments without analysis?

The FDL has several original sources. What specifically is wrong with those sources?

[mzmolly]

53. What?

When I began looking into health care I opposed the legislation. I disliked the idea of mandates. However, the more I dug, the more I learned. The more I learned, the more I liked and the more I realized that this bill, while imperfect is a huge step forward. You're free to disagree, but I hope you'll look beyond FDL for information before drawing a firm conclusion.

Ezra Klein has done some great analysis on various claims by FDL:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_kil.html

I'm out for the night. I'll check back tomorrow :hi: Goodnight.

[eridani]

57. If mandates were for real insurance whose costs and benefits were directly dictated--

--by the government, I'd be fine with them. But the mandates in the Senate bill are for really, really shitty underinsurance that is far worse than what insured people who are bankrupted typically have. The insurance companies still get to deny claims and to whimsically impose their constantly mutating lists of preferred providers on you.

BTW, my analysis of the lack of any real regulation is my own, with three citations, none of which is from FDL.

[mzmolly]

59. It's for what amounts to blue cross

insurance. And there are three options that you'll be able to choose from as of now. Insurance companies can deny coverage now and we have ZERO recourse. When we pool buying power and can keep an eye on the companies in question, we can fight back with reform.

Again goodnight. :hi:

[eridani]

65. Blue Cross pays 80%, not 60%

The subsidies are available only for the lowest tier of coverage. So those of us who don't have money get to have the worthless garbage that is useless for paying the ongoing costs of chronic illness. That there is even more than one comprehensive tier is one of the most ethically disgusting thing about the bill. It is a direct statement that the less money you have, the less care you deserve. I'd like to hear your moral justification for that.

What in fucking HELL is "keeping an eye on insurance companies" supposed to do for anyone? What it amounts to is that Congress will make a list of very naughty boys and girls every year. And they’d better watch out, because if they don’t straighten up and fly right, they’re going to wind up on that very same list again next year.

[mzmolly]

76. That's not true. Check the subsidy calculator in my sigline.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

The calculator uses the mid level coverage as a gauge of expense. The cost is nearly identical to what many pay for employer based coverage today.

[eridani]

131. ONLY the cheapest form of coverage is subsidized, period. n/t

[Cerridwen]

42. I'll see your "21 other prominent health policy experts" and raise you

45 "boots on the ground," working in the trenches M.D.s and better. Then I'll combine it with 17,000 members and chapters across the United States.

Then I'm going to question your former insurance industry insider Wendell Potter and ask him WTF he knows about the people who are "working in the trenches" with "boots on the ground."

Yeah. 'Cause industry insiders have never, ever, in the history of the US played both sides against the middle.

[mzmolly]

58. "Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a...

"Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program."

I prefer sources without a stated agenda. This group is a "single payer or bust" organization. Not an impartial body. Sure I like the idea of single payer, but I also think the Dutch system is working well and it can be a model for HC in the US.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalhealth/july-dec09/insurance_1006.html

Goodnight. :hi:

[Cerridwen]

60. Well thank heavens! Wendell Potter and your "21" experts are objective

and have no stated agenda.

Goodnight, to you, too. :hi:

[dflprincess]

88. And, really, what do doctors know about health care and how patients access it?

Better to rely on the insurance industry and their stooges in Washington to "fix" things.

[mzmolly]

91. Physicians differ in their opinions

as you know.

The American Society of Medical Doctors (ASMD) today released a nationwide, nonpartisan poll* of physicians showing that:

* 70 percent of specialty doctors oppose current Congressional and White House proposals for health-care reform;
* 66 percent believe that a government-run health insurance plan would restrict doctors' ability to give the best advice and offer the best care possible to their patients; and
* More than 60 percent would not accept new patients with government insurance (including 27% who would not accept any patients on the new government plan).

Chairman of the ASMD, Alfred O. Bonati, M.D., said that, "As a physician, the results of this poll are not surprising to me. Any doctor who has ever dealt with Medicare knows that government coverage severely limits our abilities to deliver care that best fits the needs of the patient and the patient's family. We know that government coverage does not allow for flexibility, creativity, or, sometimes, even compassion."

"I hope this research will serve as a wake-up call to policy makers," Bonati said. "Doctors are against the creation of government-run health insurance and many of us will not accept new patients with that type of coverage."

Some Dr.s are opposing the legislation is if it's a single payer "government run" plan.

Also the AMA said: "The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

Which Doctors do we listen to? Those who want single payer, or those who oppose any government involvement? What about the 450,000 doctors who've signed on to support the pending legislation? Should we listen to them? http://healhealthcarenow.org/

"450,000 physicians and medical students representing seven specialty societies joined forces in a letter to Senate committees of jurisdiction supporting health reform in America." http://www.aafp.org/online/etc/medialib/aafp_org/documents/policy/fed/hhcn/joint-ltr.Par.0001.File.tmp/JointLetterSupportingReform.pdf">READ THE LETTER HERE

[dflprincess]

104. I read the letter.

It was written last July when there was still hope of meaningful reform. It speaks of the need for access to care, not access to "coverage". It was not written in support of the scam currently being offered by the Senate.

[mzmolly]

110. The group remains supportive. Here's a letter dated January 25th from the AAFP, the AOA and the ACP

January 25, 2010
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
http://www.aafp.org/online/etc/medialib/aafp_org/documents/policy/fed/statements/hcr-future.Par.0001.File.tmp/AAFPAOAACP-HCR-Obama.pdf

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the 300,000 physician and medical student members of the American
Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians, and the American
Osteopathic Association, we are writing to express our continued support for enactment
of legislation to provide Americans with access to affordable health insurance coverage,
to implement workforce and payment reforms to help ensure a sufficient supply of
primary care physicians and other specialties facing shortages, to accelerate funding of--
and create positive incentives for-- innovative models to improve the delivery of care
including Patient-Centered Medical Homes, to put a permanent end to the cycle of
Medicare physician payment cuts created by the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)
formula, and to support alternatives to the current medical liability tort system.
Our organizations appreciate your leadership in advancing legislation, in both the House
and Senate, that advance many of the above elements--each of which we believe is
essential to achieving a sustainable, affordable and high quality health care system for all
Americans. We urge Congress and the administration to complete the task by seeking
agreement on a legislative pathway to ensure that essential reforms, consistent with the
above policies, are enacted into law.

Yours truly,

American Academy of Family Physicians
American College of Physicians
American Osteopathic Association

[dflprincess]

119. Yet you dismiss the opinion of PNHP

All this proves is there is disagreement among the professionals as well as between lay people.

[mzmolly]

122. I don't dismiss them

but I realize that they'd only agree with a single payer health care system.

[Greyhound]

68. Do you honestly think that if you find the right shade of lipstick you can get this pig kissed?

A windfall to corporations that would make Raygun blush (Zombie Raygun, even), that requires people to purchase a defective product from convicted thieves...

Oh why bother.:shrug:
K & U

[mzmolly]

77. The creepy sigline pic

says it all. I don't consider you impartial. ;)

[Greyhound]

85. No answers, but Elizabeth and her husband are creepy...

:crazy::rofl::crazy:

[mzmolly]

86. The kiss

bugs me out. :hide: Elizabeth is lovely.

[Hello_Kitty]

80. Potter's statement isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Just saying. eom

[mzmolly]

84. No, which is what makes him highly credible.

:hi: ;)

[MyNameGoesHere]

96. Killing the bill would work IF

these guys knew how to get the message out. Something like, "Well since the other side is still refusing to work in a bipartisan fashion, we have decided to use reconciliation and pass a true health care package for Americans. We feel it is no longer in the best interest of Americans to work with a party hell bent on destroying America. There will no longer be any effort to pass bills in a bipartisan fashion as the other side has proved they are incapable of representing the American people.

[woo me with science]

97. I see nothing about cutting costs.

I see vague attempts to imply that the escalation of costs might be slowed somewhat.

People cannot afford their health insurance now.

[LostInAnomie]

101. Good article.

Get it passed.

[county worker]

102. We are talking here about insurance reform not health care reform.

The bill as it is now does not do what was intended which was to provide affordable quality health care for all. All it does is force us all to join the millions who are already paying for insurance and not getting affordable quality health care.

[BzaDem]

107. Whether or not you support the Senate bill is one of the best IQ tests out there.

If you support it, you pass.

There are many complicated issues. This is not one of them. While it is fashionable now for "progressives" to claim to want nothing over the Senate bill, History is going to judge these people very, very poorly. Most won't care, since they can hide behind the cloak of Internet anonymity. There is a reason though why not a single progressive Democrat in the Senate voted against the Senate bill -- these people can't hide behind such a cloak, and they know that the Senate bill is really better than nothing (for anyone who claims to share the broad goals of progressives). When we are trying in 20 years to get a health care bill, and the best option on the table is much worse and much more corporate friendly than the Senate bill, "progressives" who want to kill the current bill are going to be looking fondly at the current bill as an example of what could have happened if only they passed the IQ test at the right time (as opposed to 20 years too late).

[winyanstaz]

108. Kill the bill....and pass a better one....

Whats so hard to understand about that?

[mzmolly]

112. Actually, it's a matter of passing the bill and

then improving it in reconciliation. If we kill the bill, we're back to the 60 vote majority needed to prevent a senate filibuster.

[winyanstaz]

118. The bill is not just bad...its a rip off and a pay off to the insurance agencies...

and does little to help people.
Kill the bill..and blame the republicans...sheesh...havent we learned anything? Then the republicans will have to support the new bill or be blamed for NO healthcare reform.

[mzmolly]

123. The bill will help Americans.

The status quo will not. Here's a staring place to peek around if you're interested. http://healthreform.kff.org/

I did not see your post before - I'm done with this thread. Have a nice evening. :hi:

[BzaDem]

113. It's easy to understand. It's also easy to understand that it's bullshit.

Some people will never understand what is possible and what is not until failure hits them smack in the head. You can't reason with them, you can't persuade them... you just need to let the failure run its course, until they are forcibly convinced by reality.

[gulfcoastliberal]

125. Yes, preferably a bill that doesn't pay for itself by de-funding medicare by $500 billion!

The bill is also as major victory for those seeking to destroy medicare and force seniors to rely on the insurance companies. The fact it steals half a trillion dollars from medicare should be reason enough for any progressive/liberal to oppose it.

[ddeclue]

127. No it wouldn't - KILL THE BILL is the ONLY option without SINGLE PAYER.

Get back to me when they want to pass HR676.

[SanchoPanza]

128. OK

Let us know where you plan to be entombed, because regardless of how old you are Single Payer will not happen in your lifetime.