As with the design of any complex human enterprise, it seems reasonable to ask that those advocating the proposed Single Payer/Public Option (SPPO) health-care reform plan to have validated their proposal against human experience, evaluated alternative proposals (including incremental reform measures), incorporated lessons learned from other similar state-level and foreign programs, weighed the costs/benefits against alternatives and against the current situation, demonstrated the Constitutional Authority reasoning used to under-gird their proposal, and made an effort to consider the effects of intended and unintended but possible impacts.
The complexity and raw size of the US health care system requires that potential changes (especially those that undertake an immediate and major course-change such as the current proposal intends) address nothing less than the rigorous items listed above. Reforming health care requires such a dispassionate approach and is not benefited by either a "get-the-votes ram-it-through" strategy nor a piece-meal compromise-for-it's-own-sake combination of disjointed parts "cobbled-together" in order to pass a bill (the original Medicare system was put in place this way). It requires a stable well thought out integrated approach with a fleshed out mature plan that can be appropriately scored economically/functionally, tested with respect to various individual and broader-based scenarios and studied and understood by all.
Such a sober and balanced evaluation of the current SPPO proposal has not been performed or delivered to the American public. With that in mind, I propose a number of questions in order to facilitate a proper evaluation of this proposal. Let's see if the President Addresses any of these tomorrow in his speech on Wednesday Night.
1) What lessons have you learned from other similar efforts both internationally and at the domestic State level?
2) Specifically, what strengths and weaknesses have been found to exist in these efforts and how has the current legislation been adjusted to achieve those strengths and avoid those weaknesses?
3) What alternative strategies have you evaluated and where is that rigorous analysis?
4) Why would you choose an unproven massive change to a health care system with which most are reasonably pleased instead of taking an incremental approach with a number of initiatives to see how much the system can be improved using market-based 'reforms' vs what is essentially a 'replacement' strategy?
5) How will it keep from covering illegal immigrants unless it allows health care providers to request appropriate documentation from patients at the time of non-emergency care?
6) How will it keep from paying for abortions when federal funds and "public option" premiums would be intermingled and thus treated as one source of funding?
7) What is the Constitutional Authority for this proposal? If that reasoning (whatever it is) could be used equally to justify a national car program or a national housing program, doesn't that in fact mean that such reasoning allows essentially anything to be undertaken by the Federal government and thus leaves the Constitution impotent as a means of limiting government and protecting individual liberties? Doesn't such a conclusion logically imply that national health care is not Constitutionally defensible?
8) Why doesn't the proposal allow private national insurance pools (will reduce costs), include tort reform (to reduce the need for expensive defensive medicine), incorporate medical savings accounts (MSA), and provide for equivalent tax treatments for health care costs for individuals and small businesses as are enjoyed by larger business?
9) Regardless of the intended changes, why wouldn't an incremental approach be better than one which includes so much immediate change that the entire health care system is potentially stressed in unforeseen ways?
10) Should (or could) Health Care be redefined such that the insurance component be viewed as providing catastrophic coverage vs the current more broad definition. This might allow that other less critical less costly measures could be organized into a more competitive system outside the primary coverage umbrella?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 115
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Universal Healthcare models
What I want is the government to build roads, maintain infrastructure, guard the boarders and ports, and defend my country from her enemies.
Good. You won't be filing for Medicare, then.
"Right C.A."
Good. No Medicare for you - or V.A.
Both of you can save the taxpayer $$$$$. Thanks.
AND, they stole the money from the SS fund - for years - for more bureaucracy!
They saw how collecting a little from many really added up. So, they stole it, then made the contributions more so they could steal more.
Now, do you see just how silly those comments really are?
Wrong, Linda. The money we (assuming we're both "boomers") paid into SS and Medicare has been used to support the "greatest generation". It's always been a system of generational dependency/support.
Communist China,
How can the boomers work to pay for the early boomers and our children where are they going to work to pay for us?
All the jobs are in Communist China, Thank you Republicans.
Our banks are begging, not investing, Thank you REpublicans
Our Houses are unsellable, some worth less than the mortgage.
Thank your Republicans.
Our 401Ks will never recover, Thank you Republicans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg
The obvious history of "limited government" as explained by the Founders means you have some government involvement in aspects of society but that there are real and compelling reasons to keep such involvement to a minimum.
And ZERO is the acceptable number.
See, Congress only has the constitutional authority to enact laws if it's a Republican Congress, safely packaged and pre-purchased by the insurance industry.
Why you lobby so adamantly against your own interest is very - well - interesting.
I disagree with you (as usual), but when a man is willing to put his life on the line in support of his position - that deserves respect. You have mine.
If my knowledge is lacking, answer the questions or refer me to a reputable source that has.
Fine, Answer the above questions to demonstrate the validity of and to make the case for your desires. Such a case has not been made.
What I've said is that you asked the wrong questions. The only pertinent questions relate to patient care. So as I find time, I will address each of your questions in that context.
I have had a handful of patients over the years from Canada. They have all said we, in the U.S., get a very skewed picture of the Canadian health system. They all were highly critical of our "system". That is anecdotal, but this story supports that view.
Bottom line: corporate profits vs. patient care.
I'm not an economist, an insurance expert, or a policy expert. I was a psychotherapist for 30 years. I know what my office and my patients struggled with, from denial of claims to the hours I and my staff spent "on hold" with insurance companies, trying to get the services approved by some clerk at an "800" number somewhere. I provided hundreds of hours of free service, when insurance companies denied claims, but professional ethics and patient care required that care for patients. I just laugh when I hear that a public option or a single-payer system will put a bureaucrat between a patient and the doctor. What a joke!!! That will have to do for my "rigorous analysis".
A public option is not "...an unproven massive change to a health care system...." It is an option. Actually, more essential than a public option (in my mind) is a national exchange - with all options in competition and large enough that it can negotiate with all options the way large corporations do.
I'm not a Constitutional fundamentalist. Conditions change, and the judgements about what is Constitutional or not, have to be made - by the courts.
Have you ever had to fight an insurance company? I have - many, many times as a provider. Once as a patient. It ain't fun - let me tell you.
Thanks for your reply(s). I appreciate the effort. To your credit, you actually tried to address the issue as so few on the left can or are willing to do. Surely you appreciate the need for a real analysis at least somewhat similar to what I have offered for such a sweeping change as the 'remaking;' of US health care? Recall the Founding Fathers were very familiar with the previous efforts at various governmental forms and used that information wisely as well as producing the The Federalist Papers as a means of explaining intellectually what they were trying to do and why? A similar approach is needed here.
A few thoughts on some of your your responses:
1) Clearly a non-anecdotal and comprehensive review of other health systems is an important input.
2) The SPPO paths are not very innovative (to say the least) and have real weaknesses with respect to costs. It is a cop-out to say ,"we have to go the government path because we can't make our system work better." Such a statement may possibly be true (I doubt it) but certainly not before an analysis of what weaknesses our current system has and how and why they could or could not be repaired.
3) I'm not a health care expert, my point is that it is incumbent on whoever proposes to change/improve the system to build a cases that what they propose is better than the alternatives. We require this every day. Why should I get this car or that one? Why enroll in this college or that one?
4) The fact that some say a public option will add competition while others believe such an option will over time eliminate private alternatives means that there is unnecessary uncertainty over the real effects. That equals loss of support.
8) We all must be Constitution- sensitive citizens. That is what government of, for, and BY the people means. We cannot allow after the fact evaluation of huge legislative measure to be decided by 9 unelected robes. We must require that Congress (who all take an oath to uphold the Constitution) to reflect that oath in their work and provide the Constitutional Authority for everything they consider, not just huge measures such as health care reform.
I find these type statements divisive and disingenuous. Why is it necessary to post everything as left or right or liberal or conservative? I am sure if you asked the same questions to conservative leaners most of them would not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. As I have watched the arguments unfold the most I have heard from conservative or right leaning people is that everything mentioned is simply wrong, a lie, bad, or socialist. Are you trying to tell me that such folks could configure enough intelligent thought to respond with anything beyond a one word answer? Why don't you help lead the way and stop this sort of subliminal BS.
You misunderstand. I applaud Steve's willingness to put some effort in the direction of REALLY analysing the health care proposal currently on the table. It is not his responsibility (nor mine or yours) to, in a blog site, to provide the true and comprehensive analysis that I am asking for.
It IS the responsibility of those who are generating such a proposal to do the work to allow the public to evaluate it in a full and through manner. This is not after all, two politicians offering unrelated earmarks to one another. This is a huge perturbation to the health care system which affects everyone in the country and deserves more than the cursory politically-based, "we'll do this because we can" cosmetic justifications that the current proposal has had offered up in it's defense.
You could sell a lot of people on the idea of putting an ice cream chest in every new car but it's not a very practical idea. Similarly just because some health care features seem attractive doesn't mean that they will work.
If Congress were to start over, and seriously set out teams to address the questions and comparisons I have listed above (or some similar set), the process would yield a bipartisan solution that the country would accept (and would be as free of politics as possible).
The arguments against a single-payer system are anecdotal. I also referenced a poll, indicating support of the anecdotes I mentioned.
"2. It is a cop-out to say ,'we have to go the government path because we can't make our system work better.'"
I think you understate just how badly our (non)-system is failing. I'm not pro-government or anti-government. I want a real system that works. I think it is significant that a system like the Mayo Clinic gives better service with less money than a non-system in Brownsville, TX, for example.
Btw, I never once spent a minute on the phone trying to justify treatment of a medicare patient to a government bureaucrat. Not once. There is every reason to believe that a real system - e.g., common database of patient information - would go a long way in "coordinating treatment" and reducing costs. Doctors and other providers try to talk with each other, but time is very scarce, and that doesn't always happen.
3. "I'm not a health care expert, my point is that it is incumbent on whoever proposes to change/improve the system to build a cases that what they propose is better than the alternatives."
Again, I think you grossly underestimate just how badly our current (non)-system fails. Also, you assume that such analyses, studies, and propositions have not been made. These things have been studied for decades. The basic issue is corporate profits vs. patient care. With the priority on corporate profits, patient care has suffered - badly. Yes - we don't want to replace one failed system with another, but I don't assume - just because government is involved - that such an alternative system will fail.
"4) The fact that some say a public option will add competition while others believe such an option will over time eliminate private alternatives means that there is unnecessary uncertainty over the real effects."
That's nothing but appealing to fear. There is no evidence that a public option will undermine the private sector. The auto industry used this same strategy to defeat CAFE standards for decades. Look where that got them. In Japan, the government defined limits for the auto industry, and they are dominant today. So - no more whining about how a public option will put private insurance companies out of business.
"8) We all must be Constitution- sensitive citizens. That is what government of, for, and BY the people means. We cannot allow after the fact evaluation of huge legislative measure to be decided by 9 unelected robes."
Alright. That's a good point. We must be citizens, cognizant of all kinds of things. I don't accept that the original Constitution covers all current situations. Judgements have to be made.
As I've said before, stating the problem and saying it is bad, really bad, whatever doesn't suggest a specific solution . A case must be made FOR a specific path. No rigorous case has been made as to why we should trash the current system for this government dominated one. Even the President said no one would 'require' you to enter the public option but if that happens because of other aspects and forces at work in this plan then where is the choice of that (and where is the truth in his statement)? To embark down such a path while basically ignoring the old 'out of date' Constitution is the height of folly.
Why else would they be so utterly terrified of the sliver of true, systematic, efficient health care being introduced into the market by the establishment of a public option?
If the President and Congress were really serious about making reforms that make sense for everyone, they would have a panel of people studying these things. They would include health care experts, people from those other countries to offer advice, and regular folks.
If they were serious about health care reforms, they would take the time required to design a plan. Then they would try it out in a small area. Then they would evaluate what worked and what did not.
And when, and if, they could come up with a good plan, they would make sure it was sustainable - and they would be honest about costs (which they are not now, as shown by the big differences in what Obama, bill authors, and the CBO all say are costs...and the proof that we have of all government programs costing far more than they are budgeted for).
Having come up with a good plan - that has been proven in a small way and that is definitely going to be sustainable in the near and far future - they would present it to the American public. The plan would be able to be understood by everyone.
Once an agreement was reached by everyone - politicians and citizens alike - then the plan could be put into use and EVERYONE - the President, Congress, government employees, union employees, working people, the poor, and senior citizens - should all be on the same plan. There cannot be a 2 or 3-tier system.
And while all of this is taking place (keeping in mind that Canada took 20 years to design a program that has now become unsustainable), those individuals and families who honestly cannot afford health care should be placed on Medicaid.
But this would only happen in a reasonable world. Not in the U.S. Emotions rule here, not good sense.
private national insurance pools, tort reform, medical savings accounts, and tax treatments for health care costs for individuals and small businesses
He also advocates for catastrophic insurance and having people pay their own way for regular medical care. This, he says, will bring down insurance costs and health care costs as well.
Here's the link to his article: How American Health Care Killed My Father
Btw, I agree with tort reform. The threat of being sued is a real drain on providers, and it was one of the considerations in my decision to retire early. Patients, who are truly harmed, have to be cared for - no doubt about that. But punitive damages are ridiculous. I don't know of many cases, in which a provider intentionally harmed a patient. But providers, who are sued, are often those, who seem uncaring and oblivious to patient care. When patients feel that their provider genuinely has their interest at heart, lawsuits are rare. That point was repeatedly emphasized in every seminar I attended on the subject.
What is needed is tort reform that discourages both willful and negligiant misconduct and the filing of liability suits strictly for personal profit. While I think both goals can be accomplished it requires looking at punitive damages from a societal viewpoint rather than the viewpoint of just the particular individuals involved, and that gets too complicated for a comment in this thread.
Episodes of "wilfull negligence" (or outright abuse) are extremely rare. Sure, there should be punitive damages in those cases. Most medical accidents, however, are just that - accidents. There is no wilfull anything, at least on the part of the provider. I can't say that in reference to insurance industry policies. Do you think there should be punitive damages against insurance personnel, who make decisions to delay approval of specific procedures covered by the policy, when patients are harmed by that delay?
I am with most conservatives when shouting a hearty "Hear! Hear!" to reforms of the current system.
Where we part ways, with our liberal brethren, is in our approach to such reforms.
Conservatives want this handled privately, and liberals want the government to control it.
Ultimately, it's as simple (and complex) as that.
I would much more apt to listen to any politician about this if he/she had bothered to do as I suggested above.
Today, I learned that the best health care is actually in Singapore, but you don't hear anyone even mentioning it.
1. I think it is clear that healthy lifestyles should absolutely be promoted. Health care should emphasize health. If you agree, how would you do that? If not, why not?
WE are all LIBS, we love people.
Up with Government Health Care. Go! Go! Go! , We think paying taxes for health is good.
We, have been using our taxes to take care of each other for a long long time.
It is patriotic!
Name one good reason to pay a private insurance company our money, when we know they will dump us if we make a claim. i
WHERE have these questions been answered? Your mantra is empty and without any basis in intellectual support. Is there a better way? Why or why not? You have to address the questions, you can't just ignore them.
The Earned income tax credit is a Republican idea for welfare.
It is suppose to be cheaper than an actual welfare program as it rewards low income workers.
What it really does.
Subsidises Employers of low income workers with my tax money.
I don't think you can figure that out.
But look at it this way.
Employer pays unemployment tax to cover workers they lay off or only on a seasonal basis.
Then the employee is paid when laid off from these funds.
The Earned income tax credit DOES NOT collect a tax from the low paying employer.
It is a tax on you and I for to provide the rich with cheap help.
It is a Republican plan. Enacted during the high unemployiment, high inflation term of Gerald Ford.
The conservatives/employers would not allow an increase in the minimum wage, nor an increase in any social programs for the poor.
This was to "encourage" people to work.
You should be loving this program.
Nice tirade but it has nothing to do with evaluating health care reform options.
Once again about something she has no knowledge or understanding about.
Seriously, They are not unfair or tainted questions. They reflect the sort of rigor that Congress should use in all it's work.
Gods first gift to Man, is Free Will!
This is about American Freedom, the envy of the world for centuries. And this is about some thinking it is 'good' to pretend we can forfiet that inalienable Right.
For those of you with that position, go ahead. Give your Rights and Freedoms away.
Give them away for your children too, if you think you have that right. (I do not.)
As for me and mine, I refuse to compromise. American Freedom Is and Shall Always Be number One.
"Human freedom, therefore, is the freedom of responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is something arbitrary, senseless and either leaves us directionless, or can lead to irresponsible, that is, lawless, immoral and violent, self-destructive ways of living."
I do not have to defend how I think and vote to you.
This a nation of secret balloting. However I have no trouble imagining you dressed up in some military uniform lurking about the polling stations threatening and intimidating voters you might suspect will vote "wrong"
You don't seem to understand anything about the U. S. A. governmental/political system.
You do seem to want it to suit your own desires.
First the only recent documented example of military-like intimidation at the polls was conducted by those on the left (I can't remember if AG Holder prosecuted or not).
Second, I put forward a practical and I believe needed method for arriving at a defensible health care plan that everyone could get behind.
Third, Since I agree you are not required to defend your ideas to me you are free to not post here if that is your choice. If you choose to post you should be willing to actually contribute logically to finding real solutions. For example, simply stating a problem does not infer a specific solution. More discussion/analysis is required to arrive at a "best" solution from the available alternatives.
You certainly bring up an intriguing point.
Suicide bombers that blow themselves up in markets, or those compassionate 911 pilots? You people are unbelievable!
Per the site [http://www.iraqbodycount.org] there have been 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since 2003. During the same time there have been approximately 7 million abortions in the US alone. Where is your outrage?
If one unreasonably attributes every Iraqi civilian casualty to a US cause (probably not such a hot idea also since Iraqi life was certainly rosy and trouble-free under Saddam who would still be there if we weren't) the ratio of innocent lives lost via abortion vs in Iraq is still 70 to 1. Where is the tiniest bit of outrage?
Perfect example here , the ANA says they recommend a single-payer system but they make zero arguments or justifications for their position. Where's the Beef?
No one knows the health care non-system better than nurses. The "beef" is in thousands upon thousands of patient contacts and hours of service.
I think it is clear that healthy lifestyles should absolutely be promoted. Health care should emphasize health. If you agree, how would you do that? If not, why not?
All that said, the only rule I can come up with is "No more donuts" but then the donut people would probably get mad at me.
Here's my answer to that question, which will undoubtedly make you uncomfortable - if not mad.
I think there should be hefty taxes on tobacco, alcohol, firearms (handguns and ammo), and junk food. I think that traffic laws should be "strictly enforced" - I mean really "strictly enforced", and there should be a surcharge on all moving violations to fund health care. These are known to make everyone sick or injured. I think there should be tax breaks for membership in a gym or health club, if it can be documented that you actually use it. And I think there should be tax breaks for every year you do not have a major medical emergency or intervention.
Actually, disincentives have been proven to work with tobacco. The higher the cost (taxes), the less youth begin to smoke. Disincentives certainly work. So do incentives. Hell - I'd like some incentives for a change. I'm tired of doing the right thing, just because it's the right thing. Take "clunkers", for example. I did that years ago, but didn't get rewarded with a $4500 rebate. Those, who have just been rewarded with that incentives, were the very ones arguing with me earlier this decade about SUVs. Still, I supported the "clunker" program.
All that said, these measures work. The status quo doesn't. So you'll have to suggest something else. Doing nothing is not acceptable - invasive or not.
So I re-assert that it is incumbent on you to come up with a way to promote healthy lifestyles in our "society", if you don't like my proposal. The status quo has failed, and that will only get worse. If you do not have an answer, then I will point to this discussion as an example of the failure of laissez-faire libertarianism - and why Constitutional fundamentalism is equally untenable.
Before you say such a step is wrong or unconstitutional because it promotes the establishment of religion, you must consider two questions. First - such programs only affect individual human hearts and there is no attempt to legislate a "State religion" in such a proposal, second - As many religions and sects would all be possible partners in this, why would this most diffuse encouragement be a problem. A recent poll suggests that youth are happier when they believe in God.
http://www.eu-digest.com/2007/09/happiness-poll-80-of-young-people.html
I don't know what you mean by "Constitutional fundamentalism" but the term suggest to me an error that has crept into our system. The Federal government was originally limited by the Constitution and not the States. We have extended it's reach to the States even further down to localities and even to individual classrooms and specific teachers in a course and heavy-handed manner when the intent of Federalism (upon which the Constitution is predicated) is to allow issues to be addressed at the most appropriate level of government.
In this context, "healthy" behavior modification (in your case physical and in mine spiritual) should occur at a point closest to the citizen rather than at the most distant federal level. Only in the local case can personal accountability and encouragement really work to allow either to succeed.
"The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by its private citizens" - Alexis de Tocqueville
First: people, who are spiritually healthy (I mean really spiritually healthy) are likely to be physically healthy as well. There are all kinds of examples that illustrate that common assumptions about spiritual health (e.g., church attendance, religious education) are nothing more than assumptions.
Second: while there is a clear causal relationship between nutrition, exercise and physical health, there is no clear relationship between religious programs and spiritual health. You can point to a study that adolescents are happier when they believe in God, but such self-reports are not generally reliable. I point to the efficacy of sexual abstinence programs. In this regard, I can also point to the fallacy that lawyers and policemen are inherently more law abiding.
Third: a system of incentives/disincentives, like the one I suggested above, is no infringement on freedom. People still are free to be unhealthy. It is not a crime. They are only required to accept the social cost of their decisions, a concept that, surprisingly, is opposed by "conservatives". I might add that such systems of incentives/disincentives are known to work.
The reason your analogy fails is because spiritual health is more abstract than physical health. There is a direct correlation between nutrition, exercise and physical health, while religious education, church attendance, etc., involve the further step of being translated into spiritual health.
By "Constitutional fundamentalism", I mean the proposition that if something wasn't anticipated by the founding fathers, it cannot be addressed at the federal level. There are current circumstances, which were never anticipated by the founding fathers. The purpose of courts is to determine the Constitutionality of how we approach such new circumstances.
The reality is that we are not an "enlightened" society. Irresponsibility abounds. Some believe that irresponsibility is an inherent "freedom". That's false. Irresponsibility is a liability - for everyone. You cannot make a credible case that I must be responsible for your irresponsible decisions, but such is the case in so many of the arenas of our society. And given your non-interventionist orientation in this debate, such would continue to be the case. Unhealthy individuals are a higher risk relative to health care dollars.
"Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness." Victor Frankl, M.D.
Finally, I stated above, "...until we (as citizens) begin to attend to our own health, and the medical establishment begins to take a preventive orientation to health care, health costs are going to continue to rise." To that, you responded, "That's right." I have suggested a way to influence that, but you have not. Therein lies the ineptness of laissez-faire, libertarianism.
Yeah, that's it. Malpractice claims make up 1/2 of 1% of total healthcare costs, and 70% of the claims are brought against 4% of the physicians. Let's strip people of their right to sue doctors who should never have been allowed in the practice in the first place, out of their practice, so that we can have them continue leaving piles of human debris as the result of their utter incompetence. Typical republican view as a "solution."
"So, what you're asking is why is it okay to murder babies overseas and use federal funds, but we can't murder babies in the US with those same funds?"
Actually, that's not at all what I said, but way to misinterpret. Another very typical republican trait, tragically.
I couldn't have made myself any clearer in my comment. We have very casually and routinely spent trillions upon trillions of dollars to build war machines to kill innocent men, women, children, and even fetuses overseas. Yet, nary a peep of complaint about this immoral practice from the "Christian moral family values crowd." Quite the contrary, these are the very people who condemn OTHERS for railing against it, by calling us "unAmerican," or "unpatriotic." We're supposed to just blindly follow along with every illegal war that's launched, and never question a military industrial complex that has spread death and destruction across this planet for over 60 years, for no purpose than to reap corporate profit, because if we dare to question it, we're no American.
Meanwhile, we're supposedly to also sit back quietly while you use a woman's right to choose as your line in the sand. Your morality and concern for human life ends with a woman's right to choose, tragically. Once that fetus becomes a living, breathing human being, you can't WAIT to deny them healthcare coverage to help them to survive, and can't WAIT to dream up new ways to murder them at a later stage in life, whether it be through state-sponsored murder through execution, or illegal acts of military aggression for corporate profit.
I find the hypocrisy and moral relativism of the "right" to be utterly intolerable, quite frankly, and nothing short of a direct offense to the very God tha they pretend they worship. I find it nothing short of patently offensive to the core that ANYONE who support capital "punishment" and wars of aggression in ANY way acceptable would have the utter audacity to call themselves "pro life."
It's mostly malpractice premiums that nearly ALL doctors have to pay and the ease with with which suits can brought (resulting in extra procedures and other steps of defensive medicine).
You should move your comment about abortion vs miltary priorities to the above thread where it belongs and address what I have already placed there. Thanks.
This is the type of thing that gets you people labeled as "pro death." You'd rather see real human suffering at the hands of an incompetent doctor, than to see someone have the ability to sue for damages. It's really incredible, but it cuts right to the core rightwing philosophy of "I've got mine, screw you." Unless/until something directly affects you people, you simply don't give a rat's ass about what happens to others. I find it disgusting and unacceptable as a core principle, to be quite honest, and it's one of the key reasons why I am so adamantly opposed to republican politics.
I may not consider myself a Christian today, but I was damn sure raised one, and I'm bright enough to see that virtually NOTHING about the republican party fits into the mold that the Christ supposedly taught.
You aren't considering the issue of defensive medicine (those procedures done not because they are intuitively needed the but 'just in case'). While on the subject, what is the cost of defensive business overall (not things done to make products safer or any of that but hesitancy, moving slower, dotting legal issues vs real ones)? Or do you even admit that such costs exist or even if you recognize they exist are loathe to remove them because 'the man would benefit'? Whichever, the legal monster in this country costs everybody money, opportunity, and the availability to new products and services. Tort reform does not mean removing all torts, just the superfluous ones.
Your judgmental statements are not appropriate. Your view that all republicans are evil - period reflects shallowness surprising even for you. The corruption you pretend to hate will only be magnified and unrepairable once you place it in the hands of an unaccountable government. I say pretend because your are perfectly willing to trade in liberties of everyone (including yourself) for your panacea socialist government.
Why do you vilify anyone that disagrees with you, that's not constructive.
"Do what we say and there won't be dragons."
"Have you seen any dragons? Good, here's our bill."
Telling the truth about you, Ken, just sounds like "vilification".
Hey, if you right-wing theorists want insurance companies to sell across state lines, defend it!
Have you given any thought at all to the boilerplate you're regurgitating? Allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines does absolutely nothing for health care costs, only re-distributes premium prices.
What's more, it re-distributes premium prices to reward bad health care practices in states with high premiums by letting those people flock to states whose health care systems are less costly and result in lower premiums. Premiums are high in states with bad health care systems for a reason.
Market pressure should drive premiums up in states with bad health care, this empty-headed proposal takes away the free-market consequences.
Minnesota has efficient health care and low premiums because of it. If people from states with costly inefficient systems start buy Minnesota insurance at low premium prices. the premiums will be forced up to pay for their bad health care delivery and I'll be stuck paying higher premiums for high-cost, inefficient health care in another state.
Nobody can give me an answer, but this bankrupt idiotic bromide keeps cropping up all over the right-wing blogosphere in spite of the fact that it's completely contrary to free-market principles.
No wonder the bankrupt conservative economic ideology brought the global economy to its knees. Corporations jiggle the strings and you reiterate their wish lists like collective sock puppets. This silly measure serves only insurance sellers and does nothing for the 16% of GDP we throw into the black hole of health care chaos.
1) Stop the name calling and insults. It's not constructive.
2) Life insurance and auto insurance are nationwide and very competitive;. The same
would apply to health insurance if it was allowed to function the same way.
3) http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/healthcare/legislativememo/07_guppy_hcconnector.html
4) If a national pool is GOOD for the public option that you crave, the same benefits would be found in the private insurer's ability to also create large cross-sates insurance pools.
5) Insurance is a risk sharing enterprise. The more people in the pool, the better.
Now that I have addressed your question, answer the questions posed in the original article. They are fair questions. They reflect the rigorous thinking that Congress should consider in every piece of legislation which they consider. The American people don't trust this democratic effort cause they know intuitively that it is a political and "agenda" driven push to increase government power over our lives. It is devoid of analysis. SO give us some. Answer my questions.
Sorry, shill, but I didn't hear an answer to either of my questions. How is re-distributing premium prices going to have any effect on actual health care costs?
How is taking away the free-market consequence of higher premiums that go hand-in-hand with inefficient state health care systems going to do anything but penalize insurance buyers in states with low-cost efficient health care?
If you want to keep playing obtuse, I'll keep asking the questions none of you shills have an answer for. I need the practice. So go back to your whine about how ill-treated you are and I'll give you some cheese to go with it because you obviously have no response. Just mindless repetition of Dick Armey's bromides.
It's just more of the empty ideology that brought America, and the world, to brink of economic collapse. How often are Americans going to be forced to prove the failure with the loss of homes and jobs? Do we have to keep cannabalizing American assets until China owns the whole American physical plant?
Analysis of the Health Care Connector Bill
HB 1569, an act relating to the health care system in Washington
. . .
The Connector bill adds two huge mandates to state law: 1) individuals and small business employees must buy coverage through a state agency and, 2) they must buy no less than the full range of benefits required by that agency, since no low-cost, basic value health plan is allowed.
I suggest you stop issuing impotent ultimatums and tell me what this has to do with allowing health insurance companies to sell across state lines.
This and a some weak apples-and-oranges comparison with life and auto insurance is supposed to be an answer? All this shows is you don't have any idea what these boilerplate hand-me-downs even mean.
Life insurance and auto insurance are primarily forms of liability coverage. The only delivery systems they cover are the funeral industry and the auto repair industry. If you're satisfied with the funeral industry in this country, and if you think auto insurance reduces auto repair costs, you're a bigger idiot than I ever imagined.
Health insurance covers a delivery system. Adjusting premium prices doesn't touch the cost of health care. This empty-headed measure doesn't address the health care industry, just the insurance industry.
It's just a conservative, knee-jerk attempt to back-door more de-regulation for de-regulation's sake. The last time you neo-con ideologues duped the American people into buying into insurance industry deregulation, you took credit default swaps out of state gambling law regulation and turned AIG loose to sell risk derivatives all around the globe. That one almost collapsed the global economy.
Now, you can either come up with some rational purpose for this ill-advised attempt to push the neo-con agenda of indiscriminate, irresponsible de-regulation, or drop it from the brain-dead litany of pretense to conservative "reform".
" 3. Don’t limit available health plans – use the power of the internet to give Washington citizens access to a nationwide market in affordable health care.
Right now state law makes it illegal for people in Washington to buy health insurance in another state, no matter how good a deal that policy might be for them. This prohibition generally does not apply to other types of insurance, like auto, homeowners and life insurance.
Today the innovative and fast-moving internet makes access to choice, price competition and product information easier than ever. Dozens of easy-to-use websites provide health coverage information. Examples of consumer-based health insurance websites are:
eHealthInsurance.com
HealthQuoteUSA (at nwinc.com)
HealthInsuranceSort.com (BlueCross)
HealthInsuranceInfo.net
HealthInsuranceFinders.com
These websites allow consumers to shop among a wide range of health coverage options, all with varying prices and benefit levels. One site alone (eHealthInsurance) lists at least 215 plans.
But because the sites must comply with state law, Washington residents are often not permitted to buy the insurance policy they might otherwise choose. A major improvement would be for the proposed Connector to serve as a clearinghouse that allows Washington residents to buy a qualified health insurance plan in any state. "
If the insurance companies can spread the pain around the country and equalize premium payments, they'll simply be able to charge more in states that currently have efficient health care systems. If they have to keep pricing themselves out of the market in states with atrocious health care systems, they can't rake in as much revenue.
As it is, insurance companies sell more insurance in states with lower premiums. People in states with high premiums resulting from inefficient health care delivery systems, just go without. If insurance companies can spread the pain around more equally, they think they can keep people from low-premium states on the hook while premiums go up, and lure more buyers in states with bad health care where premiums will go down--at my expense.
You and Dick Armey and Robert MacGuffie and this whole Tea Party sleeper cell are nothing but one big front for the insurance companies. I'm more convinced every day that you're getting paid to disseminate this crap.
Your paid insurance lobbyist pals persuaded the Federal Government to de-regulate credit default swaps in the very same way.
Premiums in states with the worst health care have reached the ceiling. They're simply unaffordable and there can be no new buyers. If insurance companies can spread the pain around and equalize premium prices they'll simply be able to generate more revenue. They'll be able to keep paying you, but it won't do the rest of us any good.
It's not about competition among insurance companies. The only thing that will serve to lower health care costs is competition among health care providers. That's precisely what the public option does, and what your impotent, partisan agenda items don't even address.
Your bankrupt, partisan measures only serve the corporate insurance providers to the exclusion of the needs of the American people. Business as usual, just the way Wendell Potter described it.
It is curious that your huge brain sees a conservative behind every possible argument of opposition to nationalized health care but fails to notice that in the short trajectory of this administration they have attacked and threatened first the financial companies, then the banks, then mortgage companies, then automobile companies, next oil companies , and energy companies, now insurance companies and basically anybody that took the initiative to attend the town hall meetings and tea party rallies all over the country. Do you not see the anti-business overtones both explicit and implicit in that? Could it not be the case that if the there are sufficient crises (either created, real, or apparent) and enough out-and-out government takeovers of private businesses the government can strongly move to implement what has been revealed to be Obama's socialist agenda? Maybe a lot of Americans don't want that agenda to come to pass and they see public option health care as a huge step in that directionand thus oppose it.
Where does the federal government 'compete' against the private sector on an level playing field? Amtrak, no; Post office, no; where:; tell us where?
And still you refuse to address my questions (but you are good at insults).
Anti-business? You might try to sell that bridge to GM, Chrysler, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, etc., etc. Seems like an awful lot of corporate bacon has been saved by this "anti-business" administration. If you want to see a short trajectory, look in the mirror. Your bankrupt ideology is in a noisy tailspin.
America spent more on health care in 2007 than all the federal revenue for fiscal 2008. That's pretty stiff competition. I agree it's high time for the federal government occupies the low end of the playing field, and it's time to change that. The National Rail Passenger Service carries passengers, a money-losing enterprise everywhere, and lets the private sector cherry-pick the freight service. The US Postal Service carries mail into every dead-end street of every podunk six days a week and lets FedEx and UPS cherry-pick the lcl package freight. Let's see if your insurance benefactors can compete on a level playing field. They're sure terrified of something.
You don't imagine the conservative bromide about private industry always outperforming the government might be in jeopardy, do you? I mean President Obama has managed to keep the government standing well enough to bail out plenty of private sector failures. Are they afraid they're outclassed? Is that the reason for all the blustering?