IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Obama's numbers may have slipped, but public opposition to the bill has remained pretty constant. I can't find one poll that shows that the American people want this thing passed.

The Democrats had the WH, the Senate and the House. Still, they couldn't get it passed. Pffffft.

Nonsense - contrary to the obvious facts.

Senate Democrats profoundly disagreed with the approach taken by Democrats in the House and, after a lengthy process, developed a very different approach - in part motivated by expressed public dismay over the CBO costing of the House legislation. Even with all their changes several Democrat Senators had to be bribed with exceedingly unfair special provisions to get their votes.

Republicans had nothing to do with this process. Throughout the Democrats enjoyed a supermajority in the Senate (until Teddy Kennedy's death) - they didn't need ANY Republican votes.

Yours is merely the conventional Democrat excuse - an obvious falsehood used to hide from their own fiasco.

Afraid not george. After the GOP meme machine spread enough nonsense about socialism and death panels when the Dems were trying to do good governance via public town halls, you've got no room to deny why the republicans are the least trusted on this matter. I never said I'm not upset with how the dems have wasted their position. It just gets more than mildly annoying to here idiot conservative mouth-breathing and fuming about how the dems are ramming this through. It's been anything but. The Dems have pussyfooted about HCR and it's only hurt HCR, and if the dems have lost support over HCR, it is my opinion that their lack of pushing it is what has hurt them in the end.

T
K
O

Suck it up Repugs and STFU ! !
......................................................
Bzzz. That's just wrong, on Health Care Reform ... http://www.juancole .com/

The invented Republican/ Foxy News talking point du jour is that the Democrats intend to 'ram health care reform down our throats' even though 'the American people don't want it.'

Bzzz. That's just wrong! First of all, when there is a landslide triumph for a party as there was in November, 2008, for the victor to actually govern and legislate is not 'ramming' anything down anyone's 'throat.' It is doing what the people asked you to do. Obama campaigned on this issue, and presumably that fact had not escaped the electorate's notice.

So it is that little tiny red thing that is talking about 'ramming' down 'throats.'

Second, 80 percent of Americans in a recent ABC/Post poll want to prohibit limits on pre-existing conditions, and 72 percent want to impose an employer mandate. Some 63 percent favor some form of public health care reform. The same proportion, 63%, want president Obama to keep trying to pass a reform. A majority, 56%, want everyone to be covered. The allegation that the 'public doesn't want it' is an artificial creation of millions of dollars in disinformation money purveyed by the pharmaceutical companies through the US Chamber of Commerce and their bought-and-paid-for congressmen and senators. If a pollster explains to a member of the public what is actually in the bill, Americans like most of the provisions, as Ezra Klein says.

Besides, all the Democrats want to implement (not ram) is the same thing every other advanced industrial society has, which is health care for all citizens. As it is, we pay more than the Netherlands or Germany or Sweden, but our health statistics are much worse than any of theirs.

As for ramming things down people's throats, here is what the Republicans rammed down our throats during Cheney-Bush:

1. War on Iraq, costing over 4,000 American service lives, 31,000 wounded bad enough to go to hospital, many of them maimed for life, and costing over our lifetimes $3 trillion (which we don't have). All based on outright lies.

2. Torture.

3. Warrantless wiretaps.

4. 'Protest zones' and arbitrary arrest of people peacefully assembled.

5. Further gutting of financial regulation, pushing the country's economy off a cliff

6. Deep tax cuts for the superwealthy and de facto tax increases for the middle classes, passed by reconciliation

7. Unfunded programs, including wars, tax cuts and medicare changes, that created most of the current budget deficit and much of our current public debt, much of it passed by reconciliaton.

8. Virtual abandonment of our troops in Afghanistan for a concentration on Iraq, and slacking off on capturing the top al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

9. The gutting of environmental regulation and the surrender of the public to corporate polluters.

10. Bush's 'victory' itself in 2000.

So suck it up, GOP. You really screwed us all over and messed up the country big time. All we want to do is have people's children be able to see a doctor without it bankrupting the family. That's your big complaint?

I fully agree. That makes it all the more remarkable that, with so much going for them, the President and the Democrat Congeress managed to **** it up so badly. This couldn't have been easy. It took a feckless and untested leader in the Presidency, who evidently believed the fauning praise of the sycophants around him; undisciplined zealots in the House who believed their moment had come at last; and unprincipled "elders" in the Senate who with great effort were able to create a complex monstrosity that few could understand, and who were all too willing to bribe their skeptical fellows in the Senate with sleazy payoffs to get their votes. In the end they all have deservedly lost the confidence of the people.

Despite all this they cling to the truly delusional excuse that it all was the fault of those nasty Republicans and their moron teaparty associates. Folks like this have lost touch with reality, becoming the chief consumers of their own propaganda. They won't understand what happened to them when the days of reconing finally arrive, starting in November.

You're still avoiding the fact that the GOP is least trusted group on this topic. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to why the public doesn't trust the GOP on this.

T
K

If that illusion keeps you happy and quiet, You are welcome to it.

Your concession on this matter is noted.

T
K
O

March 7, 2010
Editorial
If Reform Fails
As the fierce debate on President Obama’s plan for health care reform comes to a head, Americans should be thinking carefully about what happens if Congress fails to enact legislation.

Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?

Here are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive reform or continue with what we have:

HOW REFORM WOULD WORK: Let’s be clear, the changes Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are proposing are significant. But, despite what the critics charge, this is not a government takeover. And the program is not only fully paid for, it should actually reduce the deficit over the next two decades.

Under the new system, all people would be required to have health insurance or pay a penalty. If you are poor or middle class you would also get significant help through Medicaid coverage or tax credits to pay the premiums.

The legislation would create exchanges on which small businesses and people who buy their own coverage directly from insurers could choose from an array of private plans that would compete for their business. It would also require insurance companies to accept all applicants, even those with a pre-existing condition. And it would make a start at reforming the medical care system to improve quality and lower costs.

46 MILLION AND RISING: If nothing is done, the number of uninsured people " 46 million in 2008 " is sure to spike upward as rising medical costs and soaring premiums make policies less affordable and employers continue to drop coverage to save money.

The Congressional Budget Office projects 54 million uninsured people in 2019; the actuary for the federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects 57 million.

It should be no surprise that people without insurance often postpone needed care, and many get much sicker as a result. That is morally unsustainable. It is also fiscally unsustainable for safety net hospitals " which foist much of the cost on the American taxpayer when the uninsured end up in the emergency room. As the number of uninsured rises, that bill will rise.

The Senate’s reform bill would reduce the number of uninsured by an estimated 31 million in 2019. The Republicans’ paltry proposals would cut the number by only three million.

BUT I HAVE INSURANCE: While most Americans have insurance, many pay exorbitant rates because they have no bargaining power with insurers.

That includes many of the tens of millions who buy their own insurance " the unemployed, the self-employed, and those whose employers do not offer insurance. The recently announced plan by Anthem Blue Cross in California to raise annual premiums by 35 to 39 percent for nearly a quarter of its individual subscribers is a chilling harbinger of what is to come if reform fails.

There are another 48 million people who work in relatively small firms that often cannot get the better rates of large-group coverage. All of these groups should be able to get a better deal if they can buy their insurance through new, competitive exchanges.

If current trends continue, the number of underinsured Americans " those who have coverage too skimpy to pay substantial medical bills or protect them from high out-of-pocket spending " will also rise from an estimated 25 million in 2007 to 35 million in 2011, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a respected research organization.

That will increase the risk that this group will forgo needed care and will expose many more of them to potential bankruptcy if they cannot pay huge medical bills. Some 72 million adults currently have medical debt or problems paying their bills even though most of them have insurance. Reform would help them by setting minimum standards of coverage and providing subsidies to tens of millions of low- and middle-income people to help pay their premiums.

BUT I LIKE MY INSURANCE: Most Americans get their insurance through large companies, with large group bargaining power. While they complain about premiums and paperwork, most seem satisfied with their coverage.

For them the real fear is what happens if they lose their jobs or decide to change jobs. Will they be shut out of coverage because of a pre-existing condition or forced to pay high rates to buy their own insurance?

For this group, the real advantage of reform is security. If they get laid off, decide to be self-employed or switch to a smaller employer that offers no insurance, they will still be guaranteed coverage " even if they are a cancer survivor or have heart trouble or any other pre-existing condition. And they will be able to buy insurance on the exchanges.

I’M JUST WORRIED ABOUT COSTS: You should be. The cost of medical care is rising far faster than wages or inflation. And despite all of the talk about reform “bending the curve,” no one is yet sure how to do that.

Many reforms that people instinctively believe should cut costs " computerization of medical records, paying doctors for quality not quantity of services, and prevention programs to promote healthy living and head off costly illnesses " cannot yet be shown to lower costs.

Pending reform legislation, specifically the Senate bill, would launch an array of pilot projects to test reforms in delivering and paying for care. It would also create a special board to accelerate the adoption of anything that seemed to work. That seems a reasonable way to go and a lot better than standing by as costs continue to spiral out of control. The Republicans’ proposals " including their call to cap malpractice awards " would make only a small dent in the problem.

WHAT ABOUT THE DEFICIT?: Republican critics of health care reform have done an especially good job of frightening Americans with their talk of bankrupting the Treasury. The truth of the matter is that the pending reform legislation has been designed to generate enough revenue and savings to more than offset the substantial cost of expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to the middle class.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate bill would reduce deficits over the first 10 years by $132 billion and even more in the second decade.

What critics certainly do not talk about is what happens to the deficit if Medicare costs continue their relentless rise. That is something that should keep Americans up at night.

The pending reforms would cut the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary in half " from 4 percent a year to 2 percent " by demanding productivity savings from Medicare providers and cutting unjustified subsidies to the private plans in Medicare.

There is some skepticism that Congress will stick to its guns if health care providers say they cannot survive on the reduced rations. But Congress has stood by most previous Medicare cuts (physicians excepted) and should have its spine stiffened by new pay-go rules requiring that any Medicare increases be offset by other savings or taxes.

If reform is defeated, it seems likely that most of the proposed experiments designed to cut costs " first within Medicare and then throughout the rest of the health care system " will die as well. The legislation needs to be passed to establish a structure to force continuing improvement over the years. That is the best chance of restraining soaring medical costs that threaten the solvency of families, businesses and the federal government.


•

Any change as big as this is bound to cause anxiety. Republicans have happily fanned those fears with talk of “dangerous experiments” on the “best health care system in the world.” The fact is that the health care system is broken for far too many Americans. And the country cannot afford the status quo.


•
~~~
Submitted for your consideration and comments.
Joe(the time is now.)Nation

A highly selective and occasionally deliberately deceptive description of the monstrosity put together by the Senate.

In the first place the 10 year deficit projection is technically accurate but positively deceptive. The substantial new taxes for the new programs will start immediately, while the new benefits won't start for four years. The oft-cited 10 year period includes 10 years of new revenues and only six of new costs. Much more realistic projections for the fourth to the fourteenth year (the first decade of both benefits and the new taxes levied to pay for them) shows an enormous new addition to our growing deficit.

In the second place while this legislation significantly expands the potential demand for medical services, it does nothing to increase their supply. Indeed the variously constructed price controls implicit in the legislation are very likely to further reduce the supply and availability of willing providers in many areas. The crude, dumb hand of the government in the oversight of insurers and medicare/medicaid isn't likely to expand the system either. The time-honored way government limits its budget cost for the services it manages is to limit their supply.

As opposed to...?

T
K
O

Everything else.

Do you have a cite for this? The CBO projections certainly didn't show this to be true -



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/01/barack-obama/health-care-reform-estimates-deficit-reduction-are/

Cycloptichorn

So everything includes the current people who manage health care and provide health insurance currently in the USA? If so, the blank canvas that is your understanding of this matter is being framed on the wall.

We have some government hands in use right now, like Medicare. People are generally very pleased.

T
K
O

To quote Cyclo, do you have a cite for that?

The truth is that dissatisfaction with Medicare is growing fast and if the Administration's new "improvements" are enacted (the termination of Medicare paid HMO coverage, and new arbitrary & unilateral reductions in the fees paid to service providers) the dissatisfaction will grow very rapidly. In most major urban areas it is already increasingly difficult finding a general practicioner/internist who will take any more Medicare only patients and even harder finding specialists who will take them. The government rules forbid charges to patients beyond what Medicare chooses to pay. That price controls lead to a reduction in the supply of the price controlled article or service is hardly a novel discovery in the world of economics.

really george, do you want to follow your first sentence with your next one?


Newsweek-Americans happy with health care - Sept 2009
That looks to me like they are generally pleased.


Now about your claim they are becoming dissatisfied...

https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/CAHPSIDB/Public/crslt.aspx?v=qzfZ5qc9sh8=&id=Z1spT7Ba3nA=

Boy.. the excellent/good rating dropped all of 1 point from 2008 to 2009.. (Not much more than a rounding error since the poor rating stayed at 14%)
Perhaps you could explain the math that makes this a fast growing dissatisfaction george. I realize I am being a "pedant" by pointing this out but others might like an explanation.

Thanks for the source parados. If he really wanted to know he'd have taken all of 10 seconds and got many hits with sources confirming my view.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS357US357&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=satisfaction+with+medicare

To save some time, here is a link to a Pollster article about this with many annotated links embedded to more sources.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/medicares_customer_satisfactio.php

from National Journal (embedded annotation from article)...


I wonder if george is a proud man? I mean, he tried to call my bluff. He called my hand, and I showed him my cards. The right thing to do is slide his chips over.

I live in Virginia, but I'm from Missouri:

The Show-me State.
K
O

You ought to avoid saying that to others when you didn't have a cite to back up your claim.

Cycloptichorn

Once again we have Georgie making his baseless assertions (many in the above paragraph). Noticethat, as usual, he provides no cites to authority, but just gives us his usual blather.