America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I completely agree with something Rover typed. Wow.

In all seriousness, I would like to see moderates have more influence in the GOP, much like the Nelsons, Dorgans, Landreaus, etc have in with the Dems. Don't know what you got until its gone I guess (Dole, Jeffords, Chafee, etc all departing from the scene). But on this specific issue I think the GOP has been pathetic, juvenile and extremely detrimental to progress. They could have made a deal, IMHO, to get some tort reform included in exchange for a handful of moderate votes in the House. That seemed to be a deal the President at least was willing to make. They also could have coalesced around the non profit cooperative idea with a trigger option which seems pretty benign as far as public options go. Instead all the country has gotten out of them is ridiculous scare tactics and obstructionism that belongs with some fringe ex-politician promoting a book, not in Congress. Not saying the Dems have been saints, but it seems to me one party is trying to do something right, and the other party is saying we don't care, we'll do nothing to imporve the situation in the hopes that it helps us during next year's election, and upon taking over Congress we still don't plan on addressing this issue.

Now I would not call CBS a Sarah Palin worshiper, but if they are floating a trial balloon that death costs too much, wouldn't a resonable conclusion be that there is thought of a cost/benefit analysis somewhere out there for those last 60 days that will cease treatment and send the terminally ill off a bit sooner than what nature intended?

Key phrase there - the point of the story was that people are being extended unnaturally for a couple of extra weeks even without any hope of survival. I also believe the study was from a non-government agency, and the larger point was that patients and families need to have better information regarding end of life care than they get now - the very proposal in the health care bill that the Palinistas and their ilk used to launch the brainless "death panel" argument.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

...a bit sooner than what nature intended?

That's comedy gold. If you really think we should go "when nature intended," then you wouldn't treat disease at all - just let nature sort it out and decide when it's your time to go. In other words, Jehovah's Witness-level of bat poop craziness.

That would at least make the death panels' jobs easy - just deny all care to anyone for any reason at any time, all in the name of nature. Hey, that'd be cheap, too!!

 

[Plante26]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/index.php Fun to take quiz- tests what most people in here should do well on. If Kep wan't retired he would probably be at 100%

12 of 12.

Now I would not call CBS a Sarah Palin worshiper, but if they are floating a trial balloon that death costs too much, wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that there is thought of a cost/benefit analysis somewhere out there for those last 60 days that will cease treatment and send the terminally ill off a bit sooner than what nature intended?

Wrong choice of words at the end there (".....sooner than nature intended"), but what you're looking at is a slippery slope of epic proportions.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Healthcare reform support down to 38%

You've got to wonder how low the numbers have to go before they drop it.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Healthcare reform support down to 38%

You've got to wonder how low the numbers have to go before they drop it.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you..

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_1123.pdf

Dems are better off passing it than not. Just like the rest of the country is better off if passed than not.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you..

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_1123.pdf

Dems are better off passing it than not. Just like the rest of the country is better off if passed than not.

History argues against you.

Medicare Part A - estimated/$9 billion a year by 1990 - actual/$67 billion a year
Entire Medicare Program - estimated/$12 billion a year by 1990 - actual/$110 billion a year
Medicare relief to states for hospitals - estimated $1 billion a year in 1992 - actual/$17 billion a year

If the program is so great, why does it need to accumulate revenue for 4 years before any benefits are given out?

If 10 years of revenue only cover 6 years of benefits, how can it be solvent in the future?

 

[Plante26]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Just like the rest of the country is better off if passed than not.

Debatable. Almost 90% of Americans are currently insured, and over 60% of Americans are against the bill due to the implications it will have on their health care situation. Precedent says:

Cost of health care: Most likely going up, because everything the government touches becomes more expensive.

Quality of health care: Will most likely go down, because there is no stipulation to increase the number of health care providers while drastically increasing the number of patients.

Also see:

National debt: Will undoubtedly go up, because while Obama has promised to cut $500 billion in waste/fraud/abuse from Medicare, he hasn't done the same to the national budget--which was a campaign promise.

Insurance industry employment: Will plummet, because in most cases it will be cheaper for businesses to dump employees on to a public option than to insure them--which will lead to tens of thousands of job losses in the insurance sector.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Debatable. Almost 90% of Americans are currently insured, and over 60% of Americans are against the bill due to the implications it will have on their health care situation. Precedent says:

1) Cost of health care: Most likely going up, because everything the government touches becomes more expensive.

2) Quality of health care: Will most likely go down, because there is no stipulation to increase the number of health care providers while drastically increasing the number of patients.

Also see:

3) National debt: Will undoubtedly go up, because while Obama has promised to cut $500 billion in waste/fraud/abuse from Medicare, he hasn't done the same to the national budget--which was a campaign promise.

4) Insurance industry employment: Will plummet, because in most cases it will be cheaper for businesses to dump employees on to a public option than to insure them--which will lead to tens of thousands of job losses in the insurance sector.

Lets take 'em by # for clarity's sake:

1) Opinion and not fact. As we're on a college hockey message board, check out tuition for private vs state schools and get back to me on your statement.

2) Opinion. While there will need to be more providers, there's also the offset of people not running to the ER for every cough, sniffle, or bite because they don't have any other way of obtaining medical care (i.e. no insurance).

3) He's been in office for a whopping 9 months in the middle of a recession. One can recall the thoughts of conservatives during Clinton's first year regarding deficit reduction, and those thoughts turned to to be pretty incorrect.

4) Public option proposal by independent CBO analysis will only affect a couple million people, not the hundreds of millions with employer based insurance. Independent analysis vs USCHO poster analysis? I'll side with the CBO.

 

[walrus]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

If the program is so great, why does it need to accumulate revenue for 4 years before any benefits are given out?

The taxes to fund the program start now but benefits start in 2014?

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

If the program is so great, why does it need to accumulate revenue for 4 years before any benefits are given out?

If 10 years of revenue only cover 6 years of benefits, how can it be solvent in the future?

You won't see immediate benefits, much like a lot of other things in life (as in you start paying college tuition in advance of actually getting a job post-graduation). As there will be some start up costs, a fiscally responsible thing to do is set it up to cover said costs. As far as the future goes, the CBO preducts 650Bn in savings for the next 10 years of the Senate bill after the initial 10 years savings of 130Bn (similar to the House version for 1st decade). Again, who to believe - an independent analysis by professionals or a USCHO internet poster with an axe to grind?

 

[joecct]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Lets take 'em by # for clarity's sake:

1) Opinion and not fact. As we're on a college hockey message board, check out tuition for private vs state schools and get back to me on your statement.

UCLA just proposed a 34% increase. Also, many state schools are accepting more out of state students to increase the revenue stream.

In-state school tuitions are lower as the legislature has deemed that to be a "benefit" to its citizens - everyone in the state subsidizes the operating costs. Private schools do not have that luxury.

Governments can be inefficient. Private firms, if they want to last, cannot afford the same degree of inefficiency.

You've accused the GOP supporters of sucking on the Bush *** for the last 8 years. Are you any different in your adulation of the Gospel according to Barack??

 

[walrus]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Are you any different in your adulation of the Gospel according to Barack??

Barack is the smartest person in the room, always remember that.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

UCLA just proposed a 34% increase. Also, many state schools are accepting more out of state students to increase the revenue stream.

In-state school tuitions are lower as the legislature has deemed that to be a "benefit" to its citizens - everyone in the state subsidizes the operating costs. Private schools do not have that luxury.

Governments can be inefficient. Private firms, if they want to last, cannot afford the same degree of inefficiency.

You've accused the GOP supporters of sucking on the Bush *** for the last 8 years. Are you any different in your adulation of the Gospel according to Barack??

Good for UCLA, now chew on this from wikepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CollegeTuitionsUsAverage1993to2004.png

Might want to give up the ghost on this one....

I'm accusing the Bush admin of having 8 years in office compared to 9 months of the Obama administration. Lets get a little more of a track record before we start drawing parallels between Obama and Bush fiasco.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Article on the proposed taxation of "Cadillac" health plans ... it may hit closer than you think.

Schoolteacher Kinzi Blair makes only $46,000 a year, but she has what many would consider a "Cadillac" health plan, now targeted for a big tax increase by health reformers.

The tax on high-dollar health plans would hit only a few very wealthy Americans and many more in the middle class, experts agree. But it also might bring down health care costs by discouraging companies from offering coverage with so many benefits.

Tax analysts for Congress say the 40 percent tax on very generous health plans likely would be passed on to consumers, in Blair's case raising her annual premiums by $1,000. Or perhaps her benefits would be cut instead and she'd have a higher deductible and higher copays. She recently spent $50 on an emergency room copay after she sprained her ankle slipping in the dark on a phone book that had been delivered to her porch.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_he_me/us_health_care_fairness

 

[unofan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Article on the proposed taxation of "Cadillac" health plans ... it may hit closer than you think.







http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_he_me/us_health_care_fairness

Why was she going to the ER for an ankle sprain?

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Why was she going to the ER for an ankle sprain?

Probably depends on the degree of sprain, such as ligament damage. I went for an ostensible knee sprain, only to later learn I tore my ACL.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Why was she going to the ER for an ankle sprain?

Several reasons I can think of (don't know if any of these applied to her or not): pain was indicative of a more severe injury then what was actually there, it was after normal business hours and her doctor's office was closed, doctor was too heavily booked to see her same day, local urgent care provider sent her to the ER (this has happened to me), etc.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Perhaps this question is naïve, but why not instead of making the health care plans that most citizens already have worse in order that health care be provided to the very few that don’t have it, why not ‘encourage’ the medical services industry itself to reduce operating costs so that they may in turn reduce the amounts of the bills they submit to health care providers? And I’m not necessarily talking about cutting services, but rather reducing the charges induced up and down the line – with everything from routine visits and preventative care all the way up to emergency room visits and major life-saving services. Has such an endeavor (which I realize would be monstrous, perhaps even impossible) even been explored as either a precursor or even a part of health care reform? I realize that may go against the grain of the spirit of capitalism, but…

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Article on the proposed taxation of "Cadillac" health plans ... it may hit closer than you think.







http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_he_me/us_health_care_fairness

It will be interesting to see if this tax on "Cadillac" plans stays in the bill. I would think that a lot of union people have such plans, and if that's the case their union bosses will be putting a lot of pressure on the Dems in Congress to drop it.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

It will be interesting to see if this tax on "Cadillac" plans stays in the bill. I would think that a lot of union people have such plans, and if that's the case their union bosses will be putting a lot of pressure on the Dems in Congress to drop it.

The teacher's union is a great example here. Teachers get paid crap, but they have some of the best health plans out there available to them.