Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Yeah we know that...whats your point?
Yeah we know that...whats your point?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Congressmen vote based on what the whip tells them to (80% of the time), what their staffers say the political smart thing to do is (19%) or their personal gut instinct / hobbyhorse (1%).
Trust me, Congressmen never, ever vote based on the actual content of a bill. Ever.
Congressmen vote based on what the whip tells them to (80% of the time), what their staffers say the political smart thing to do is (19%) or their personal gut instinct / hobbyhorse (1%).
Trust me, Congressmen never, ever vote based on the actual content of a bill. Ever.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Outside of a second (third?) American Revolution, how do you change the system??
Good golly, you're as cynical as I am!!
Outside of a second (third?) American Revolution, how do you change the system??
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Let me ask you this. Do you really believe the text of HR 3200 is as argued by the Liberty Counsel document?
I would guess the public, like most everyone on this board hasn't read any part of HR 3200, let alone all of it. Whatever opinions they have formed, pro or con, are all as a result of what someone has reported/argued it says or does, not what they've read for themselves.
If your position is as stated in the LC document you linked, I'm not going to bother debating with you, nor should anyone else. I looked at the LC document and HR 3200, and the author's arguments (at least on the first 4-5 I read) are so off base that they're lunacy.
I mean c'mon. Bullet point #1: "The bill mandates a government audit all of the books of employers who self-insure." Sec. 113, pgs. 21-22 of HR 3200, the citation provided by LC, says no such thing. It says that within 18 months Congress wants Health and Human Services and Labor to study the large group insured and self insured employer markets to analyze the differences between insured and self-insured plans, the characteristics of employers that choose each, etc..., and analyze the impact of this bill so that it doesn't create or cause a result Congress doesn't want to reach, namely forcing a bunch of small employers to self-insure.
Bullet point #2: "YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED!" (LC's capitalization, not mine).
Their cite is page 29, lines 4-16, which simply state that the "cost sharing" (which I believe means an individual or family's annual contribution) shall be $5000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, increases tied to the CPI. There is nothing in there regarding rationing health care.
I will be honest. I quit after comparing the first 5 bullet points to the citations given because they weren't even rational arguments.
There are probably many good debating points about this proposed bill, but the links you've provided don't have any of them.
Let me ask you this. Do you really believe the text of HR 3200 is as argued by the Liberty Counsel document?
I would guess the public, like most everyone on this board hasn't read any part of HR 3200, let alone all of it. Whatever opinions they have formed, pro or con, are all as a result of what someone has reported/argued it says or does, not what they've read for themselves.
If your position is as stated in the LC document you linked, I'm not going to bother debating with you, nor should anyone else. I looked at the LC document and HR 3200, and the author's arguments (at least on the first 4-5 I read) are so off base that they're lunacy.
I mean c'mon. Bullet point #1: "The bill mandates a government audit all of the books of employers who self-insure." Sec. 113, pgs. 21-22 of HR 3200, the citation provided by LC, says no such thing. It says that within 18 months Congress wants Health and Human Services and Labor to study the large group insured and self insured employer markets to analyze the differences between insured and self-insured plans, the characteristics of employers that choose each, etc..., and analyze the impact of this bill so that it doesn't create or cause a result Congress doesn't want to reach, namely forcing a bunch of small employers to self-insure.
Bullet point #2: "YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED!" (LC's capitalization, not mine).
Their cite is page 29, lines 4-16, which simply state that the "cost sharing" (which I believe means an individual or family's annual contribution) shall be $5000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, increases tied to the CPI. There is nothing in there regarding rationing health care.
I will be honest. I quit after comparing the first 5 bullet points to the citations given because they weren't even rational arguments.
There are probably many good debating points about this proposed bill, but the links you've provided don't have any of them.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
I think the public debate needs to be framed as such:
Resolved, that this house endorse increased federal government involvement in the health care arena.
If you agree, what are the limits? If you disagree, come up with the alternatives.
Note: the FG is up to its knees in health care involvement, the question is do we want it up to the armpits?
I think the public debate needs to be framed as such:
Resolved, that this house endorse increased federal government involvement in the health care arena.
If you agree, what are the limits? If you disagree, come up with the alternatives.
Note: the FG is up to its knees in health care involvement, the question is do we want it up to the armpits?
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
It may be a while before we get to see the Senate bill. It may even be a while before most senators get to see it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574301050879872972.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
It may be a while before we get to see the Senate bill. It may even be a while before most senators get to see it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574301050879872972.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
I know way too many people who work on the Hill to have any illusions.
There are illusions the other way that could be dispelled, too, of course. A large segment the people who matter in government -- the ones who actually research, write and horse-trade our laws -- are smart, well-educated, and dedicated. There are a few ideologues on both right and left on member staff, but they are roundly mocked by everyone else and excluded from all important decisions. The members themselves range from congenial, harmless old men (generally, Senators) to stupid, vicious old men (generally, Congressmen), but other than being show ponies to attract the bets of the 75% of voting constituents who can't find their *** with two hands and a map the members are fungible. The percentage of smart to dumb people in DC is far higher than in Smallville. The percentage of cynics to true believers is a lot higher, too, though, and the percentage of people from either party who believe the public should be entrusted with actually having a say in their own government is vanishingly small, because the people from back home who make phone calls or write letters to their reps are the sort of people that show up in the Darwin Awards (or at town halls).
So basically the federal government -- whoever controls it -- is like a university. There's a lot of democratic window dressing and the undergrads are constantly getting their panties in a bunch over artificially-constructed rivalries but it comes down to a dozen very smart people deciding policy based on an assessment of what's good policy balanced against the continual Santa Anna winds of brute monied interest. And afterwards they all go to the same nice restaurant and try not to listen to the disgusting noises made by the drunken, sophomoric rabble outside.
I know way too many people who work on the Hill to have any illusions.
There are illusions the other way that could be dispelled, too, of course. A large segment the people who matter in government -- the ones who actually research, write and horse-trade our laws -- are smart, well-educated, and dedicated. There are a few ideologues on both right and left on member staff, but they are roundly mocked by everyone else and excluded from all important decisions. The members themselves range from congenial, harmless old men (generally, Senators) to stupid, vicious old men (generally, Congressmen), but other than being show ponies to attract the bets of the 75% of voting constituents who can't find their *** with two hands and a map the members are fungible. The percentage of smart to dumb people in DC is far higher than in Smallville. The percentage of cynics to true believers is a lot higher, too, though, and the percentage of people from either party who believe the public should be entrusted with actually having a say in their own government is vanishingly small, because the people from back home who make phone calls or write letters to their reps are the sort of people that show up in the Darwin Awards (or at town halls).
So basically the federal government -- whoever controls it -- is like a university. There's a lot of democratic window dressing and the undergrads are constantly getting their panties in a bunch over artificially-constructed rivalries but it comes down to a dozen very smart people deciding policy based on an assessment of what's good policy balanced against the continual Santa Anna winds of brute monied interest. And afterwards they all go to the same nice restaurant and try not to listen to the disgusting noises made by the drunken, sophomoric rabble outside.
Last edited:
The Exiled One
New member
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
A) The cost of healthcare itself, from the healthcare providers.
B) The cost of health insurance.
I'm going to leave cost "A" alone for a second and focus on cost "B". There are two simple truths when addressing the cost of health insurance...
1) Anything other than a cash system will mean most people will never receive more in benefits than they pay in.
2) The largest group assembled will receive the best value on their health care and pay the lowest premiums.
I'll let the experts come up with the solutions, but what I don't want to see is a solution that chooses to ignore one or both of the health insurance "truths" that I've listed above.
I think separate solutions are needed for the two separate (though somewhat intermingled) costs of healthcare, both of which are rising...
A) The cost of healthcare itself, from the healthcare providers.
B) The cost of health insurance.
I'm going to leave cost "A" alone for a second and focus on cost "B". There are two simple truths when addressing the cost of health insurance...
1) Anything other than a cash system will mean most people will never receive more in benefits than they pay in.
2) The largest group assembled will receive the best value on their health care and pay the lowest premiums.
I'll let the experts come up with the solutions, but what I don't want to see is a solution that chooses to ignore one or both of the health insurance "truths" that I've listed above.
Foxton
Banned
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Anyone get one of these chain mails yet? My Grandma, who's a parapalegic, sent it to me and like 40 other people. I sent her one back immediately that if she goes all activist and spams people with this kind of stuff, she won't be seeing me again.
You can tell they know what they are talking about since they use all caps.
Anyone get one of these chain mails yet? My Grandma, who's a parapalegic, sent it to me and like 40 other people. I sent her one back immediately that if she goes all activist and spams people with this kind of stuff, she won't be seeing me again.
You can tell they know what they are talking about since they use all caps.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
I'd be proud to have you as a grandson
Foxton
Banned
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
You should have seen some of the stuff she sent me when the campaign was going on for President. Obama this, Obama that, we're all going to hell.I'd be proud to have you as a grandson
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
We are. In case you hadn't noticed our politicians are idiots and are leading the way
We are. In case you hadn't noticed our politicians are idiots and are leading the way
Foxton
Banned
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Meh, that's been the way since the start of the nation. Country still exists somehow. In that case she was just being bigoted.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
HR 3200 has a provision that requires the IRS to divulge personal tax return information to the proposed new Health Choices Commissioner. Tax returns would not be quite so private any more. Currently under the Privacy Act, such government to government exchanges of private information is a no-no.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/08/31/health-bill-breeches-irs-privacy/#more-630
HR 3200 has a provision that requires the IRS to divulge personal tax return information to the proposed new Health Choices Commissioner. Tax returns would not be quite so private any more. Currently under the Privacy Act, such government to government exchanges of private information is a no-no.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/08/31/health-bill-breeches-irs-privacy/#more-630
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
don't we need to know who can afford to pay or not??
don't we need to know who can afford to pay or not??
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but if I had heard just the first sentence of this post, I wouldn't have thought it to be anything unusual.
And here, I've been assuming that the IRS just does more or less whatever it wants with that info.
That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but if I had heard just the first sentence of this post, I wouldn't have thought it to be anything unusual.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
http://www.boston.com/news/health/a...secures_health_care_needs_of_mass_immigrants/
The future of America's health care??????
http://www.boston.com/news/health/a...secures_health_care_needs_of_mass_immigrants/
The future of America's health care??????
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
What exactly are you outraged about? That a state which has committed itself to covering all its residents worked a deal so that it could continue to insure legal immigrants with refugee status (a.k.a. equal protection)? That the state had the nerve to negotiate with a new private insurance company to provide that coverage when the existing players wouldn't meet the price the government was looking for (a.k.a. a free market)?
Seems like a non-story to me.
What exactly are you outraged about? That a state which has committed itself to covering all its residents worked a deal so that it could continue to insure legal immigrants with refugee status (a.k.a. equal protection)? That the state had the nerve to negotiate with a new private insurance company to provide that coverage when the existing players wouldn't meet the price the government was looking for (a.k.a. a free market)?
Seems like a non-story to me.
leswp1
New member
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Not to mention that if we don't do that then it will be significantly more expensive without insurance to care for the patient when they hit the ER for everything. The ER is required to take care of emergent things (which there will be more of when chronic illness isn't treated) but not non-emergent things (the stuff that would prevent further ER visits). The patient would still be required to pay but what would the capture be if they don't have the money anyway.
Of course the cost of this insurance is still ridicuolously high for the income level and leaves out some basic things that could make the difference between getting and keeping a job like vision and dentistry.
No one seems to recognise that 'Free Care' is only free if the person qualifies for it. This is true for anyone getting treated from the legal immigrant to the poor white working soul. If the person does not qualify, someone needs to absorb the cost which is.... the hospital. More and more people are fitting into the category where they do not qualify for free care but can't afford care on their own. They don't get or seek care until they are quite acute. This is why the number of hospitals in our state and many others across the country have dropped drastically in the last 20 yrs. They can't stay solvent. This affects health care for all of us in access and in finances.
Some examples- In our community (city and surrounds of greater than 100K) we have 2 hospitals. They have dropped services that used to be standard. No acute inpatient psychiatric care for >10miles around. We have an acute assessment team but have to ship out ($$$$$$) to somewhere 30 min away to get the person treatment. Psych is too expensive to maintain and doesn't give a reimbursement level that will fund itself. Of course this means that the ties of the treating facility to the community are almost non-exsistant. When the person is discharged they very frequently have little or no aftercare options because there is no availability of appointments locally and the treatment place is far enough away that transportation can be an issue. Many people would discount this as they don't feel psych is important. People who aren't stable frequently have a number of medical problems that get way out of control when they are not OK. $$$$$$ again.
Only one hospital now does pediatrics and maternity. If the pregnant person or kid goes to the ED and is in trouble they need to be shipped to the other hospital for admission. $$$$$$$$ wasted.
Both hospitals in the city are overloaded. This used to happen only in flu season and sporadically. It is now almost the norm when we have to admit someone for the patient to wait many hours in an acute state for a bed to be available. If they are acute enough they need to go to the ER to wait~ poor use of resources and $$$$$$. We already know what they need and just need a place to supply it. Instead they get stuck with an additional co-pay and the ER Docs need to reassess and then treat. STUPID!
No idea what the current bill is going to do about that but I know this isn't a phenomenon that is exclusive to my state and the money wasted is ridiculous!
Not to mention that if we don't do that then it will be significantly more expensive without insurance to care for the patient when they hit the ER for everything. The ER is required to take care of emergent things (which there will be more of when chronic illness isn't treated) but not non-emergent things (the stuff that would prevent further ER visits). The patient would still be required to pay but what would the capture be if they don't have the money anyway.
Of course the cost of this insurance is still ridicuolously high for the income level and leaves out some basic things that could make the difference between getting and keeping a job like vision and dentistry.
No one seems to recognise that 'Free Care' is only free if the person qualifies for it. This is true for anyone getting treated from the legal immigrant to the poor white working soul. If the person does not qualify, someone needs to absorb the cost which is.... the hospital. More and more people are fitting into the category where they do not qualify for free care but can't afford care on their own. They don't get or seek care until they are quite acute. This is why the number of hospitals in our state and many others across the country have dropped drastically in the last 20 yrs. They can't stay solvent. This affects health care for all of us in access and in finances.
Some examples- In our community (city and surrounds of greater than 100K) we have 2 hospitals. They have dropped services that used to be standard. No acute inpatient psychiatric care for >10miles around. We have an acute assessment team but have to ship out ($$$$$$) to somewhere 30 min away to get the person treatment. Psych is too expensive to maintain and doesn't give a reimbursement level that will fund itself. Of course this means that the ties of the treating facility to the community are almost non-exsistant. When the person is discharged they very frequently have little or no aftercare options because there is no availability of appointments locally and the treatment place is far enough away that transportation can be an issue. Many people would discount this as they don't feel psych is important. People who aren't stable frequently have a number of medical problems that get way out of control when they are not OK. $$$$$$ again.
Only one hospital now does pediatrics and maternity. If the pregnant person or kid goes to the ED and is in trouble they need to be shipped to the other hospital for admission. $$$$$$$$ wasted.
Both hospitals in the city are overloaded. This used to happen only in flu season and sporadically. It is now almost the norm when we have to admit someone for the patient to wait many hours in an acute state for a bed to be available. If they are acute enough they need to go to the ER to wait~ poor use of resources and $$$$$$. We already know what they need and just need a place to supply it. Instead they get stuck with an additional co-pay and the ER Docs need to reassess and then treat. STUPID!
No idea what the current bill is going to do about that but I know this isn't a phenomenon that is exclusive to my state and the money wasted is ridiculous!
Last edited:
- Status