Healthcare bill debate passed

[blackangst1]

I imagine that now you will request I write a research paper showing why the comment about our system that you just made up is false. (and it is.)

If you believe the disparity between US per capita health care spending/outcomes and the spending/outcomes of other OECD countries is due to medicare/medicaid/VA/etc. fraud, waste, and corruption please provide citations from authoritative, nonpartisan, or peer reviewed sources to back up your argument.

Don't forget the links! (no op-eds please)

I dont believe that at all...perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote?

 

[fskimospy]

Nope - again, you aren't comparing apples to apples. It's a good anecdote but it certainly doesn't mean jack shit as a reason for why our system "sucks".

No dodging except from you. You seem to simply refuse to admit or acknowledge that a socialistic gov't is fundamentally different than ours and that it affects their healthcare. Do you really see healthcare in a vacuum?

Again, what other countries do doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to reasons for our "suck". I've already stated that it could be used as a comparison item but it most certainly is not the/a reason ours "sucks". You can try to claim they are superior all day long but it's nothing more than your opinion. I wouldn't trade our system for any in the world because I think it is superior(and the wealthy of the world coming here for treatment pretty much indicates that - no?)

So while you want to twist and wiggle - nothing you've stated refutes or destroys the statement I made. What other countries do is their business but they or their system is not a REASON why ours supposedly "sucks".

I asked you simple questions three times and every time you refused to answer them. It's not like they were super complicated, you said other governments were different and I asked how. You said that the government was 'meddling' and I asked how... and you couldn't answer.

And no, the wealthy coming here for treatment does not show that our system is superior. It shows that our system is superior for the wealthy.

 

[fskimospy]

I dont believe that at all...perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote?

I don't think I did. You said our system sucks because of the fraud waste and abuse in the government controlled sector of our health care system. Maybe you should define what you mean by 'suck' then.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I asked you simple questions three times and every time you refused to answer them. It's not like they were super complicated, you said other governments were different and I asked how. You said that the government was 'meddling' and I asked how... and you couldn't answer.

And no, the wealthy coming here for treatment does not show that our system is superior. It shows that our system is superior for the wealthy.

Also, I've already stated how - they are socialist - our is currently not as much(yet). Do you really think that healthcare lives in a vacuum? <- you haven't addressed that yet. Are you really that ignorant that you think you can suggest healthcare is the same when gov'ts are different?

Then to your other little tantrum - did you not acknowledge that we do not have a free-market system for healthcare? Since we don't, who do you think does the controlling? Oh wait... So since it "sucks" now with meddling - your answer is more meddling and control? BRILLIANT!!!

Also, you can keep whining all you want but you've still not addressed the fact that using other countries is not a "reason" ours "sucks".


lol, yeah I guess it's not superior then since the wealthy come here. :confused; It either is or isn't superior. You can whine about the cost of it being superior and I might agree to a point but just because it's expensive doesn't mean it isn't superior.

 

[Wreckem]

The Dem's are vowing to remove the Stupak Amendment if the Bill reaches a conference committee. They sure don't want this Bill to pass it seems.

The Bill is far from getting passed. The Senate will have to get debate closed. Then pass it. Then they need to have a conference committee. Then the House has to vote on final passage, and then the Senate has to close debate and pass it.

I'm still inclined to say the Bill wont be signed into law. The Dems are doing their best to make that happen. The Stupak Amendment gets yanked, the bill is doomed.

Its funny, it took the Republicans 12 years to kill off their moderates. The Democrats are doing it at break neck speed.

 

[fskimospy]

1) So efficiency is what actually matters. Efficiency implies savings...so just how much is this going to save the average taxpayer? I'm hearing that CBO's projected $829 billion "savings" over 10 years reflects a massive hike in payroll tax revenues from the middle class. These 'savings' include an individual mandate tax, an employer mandate tax, a potential death of Health Savings Accounts (HSA), a tax on high-end health plans, a new cap on flexible-spending accounts (FSAs), and various tweaks in the tax code to raise new revenue. Add all these taxes together with Medicare and Medicaid cuts (estimated at $404 billion) and you get you $829 billion in 'savings'. Sweeet! Excuse me...but I can't afford this kind of "efficiency" and "savings". If this is your idea of "efficiency"...then I shutter to think about what constitutes "better healthcare".

2) I beg to differ with you regarding coverage denials...it tells you that you have a fraud problem and/or a healthcare effectiveness problem....and in Medicare's case....probably both. From your comments, it appears that Medicare's huge denial rate is a reflection of rampant fraud prevalent within this Government run healthcare system? If so, you're not exactly making a good argument here for more Government run healthcare now are you? $404 billion of Medicare and Medicaid cuts...that's probably not all fraud...that's probably not all magically created efficiencies...that's probably a lot of cuts that affects basic coverage like this:
Government Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' New Cuts Threaten U.S. Cancer Care
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-cancer-care-68577807.html?wwparam=1257795661
Is this your idea of "better healthcare"?

3) 4,000 mothers is one hell of a lot of "anecdotal evidence".
Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-offices-hospital-toilets.html#ixzz0WORO0RUG
"Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full."
"Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year."
Is this your idea of "better healthcare"?

eskimospy...I think we want the same thing. To most...it's clear that we do have a reasonably good system...that could use some major reforms. But a radical change to the system is risky and many fear that it will likely result in higher costs and lower quality care...something I hope that neither of us wants.

1.) Many of your 'taxes' are not very accurate descriptions of what is going on. Is the car insurance mandate a 'car tax'? Well sort of, but you get something for it. Individual and employer mandates are something we should have had in place since 1986 when we decided that hospitals must treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

As for my depiction of Medicare being fraud ridden, I wasn't actually saying that at all. I was simply saying that denial rate alone does not tell you much of anything about a system. Nothing more, nothing less.

2.) That link is basically a press release from an association that exists to promote oncology practices. I'm not exactly shocked that they don't like less money going to oncology practices, but I would hardly consider what amounts to little more than a press release from an interest group for oncologists as something that speaks to the efficacy of these changes.

3.) Did you read the article? The one that claimed '4,000 mothers giving birth in toilets, etc' had an incredibly misleading title. All of the numbers they actually gave in the article were people giving birth in rooms in the hospital that weren't specifically maternity rooms, people giving birth while driving to the hospital, things like that. Not particularly outrageous. As far as I could tell from the article the idea of women giving birth in an elevator was a singular incident, and while that's terrible it's definitely anecdotal evidence. A woman giving birth in a 'non labor bed' is unfortunate, but I'm not really up in arms about it.

I don't really think we have a reasonably good system, I think it is abysmal. Our system is so bad that the only way we can achieve health care outcomes that are roughly equivalent with the rest of the world (some better, some worse) is by shoveling 250% more cash into it than the median. Saying our system is pretty good is like saying a Prius and an old '70's Bronco both get 'pretty good' gas milage because they both reached their destination even though you had to put about 3 times as much gas in the Bronco. The quality of care we get is good, the system we dispense it with is atrocious.

I honestly believe that we need a radical change. I don't even believe for-profit insurance should exist, it's a stupid idea. (No, I don't want the government to ban it, I just think it's dumb.) To be honest my main problem with this bill is that it does not go nearly far enough. We have an excellent blueprint for change in our system from the socialized ones in Europe, and I hope that someday we have the courage to use it. We do want the same thing, a system that is accessible, affordable, and one that provides good quality care. I think it's possible, but I'm not sure if America is ready for it.

 

[fskimospy]

The Dem's are vowing to remove the Stupak Amendment if the Bill reaches a conference committee. They sure don't want this Bill to pass it seems.

The Bill is far from getting passed. The Senate will have to get debate closed. Then pass it. Then they need to have a conference committee. Then the House has to vote on final passage, and then the Senate has to close debate and pass it.

I'm still inclined to say the Bill wont be signed into law. The Dems are doing their best to make that happen. The Stupak Amendment gets yanked, the bill is doomed.

Its funny, it took the Republicans 12 years to kill off their moderates. The Democrats are doing it at break neck speed.

This bill will be signed into law, period. The odds are overwhelming in its favor. Individual amendments may be put in or taken out, but a bill that's pretty similar to what we're seeing will go through if for no other reason than the Democrats have far more to lose from passing nothing than from passing something they don't like.

 

[blackangst1]

1) So efficiency is what actually matters. Efficiency implies savings...so just how much is this going to save the average taxpayer? I'm hearing that CBO's projected $829 billion "savings" over 10 years reflects a massive hike in payroll tax revenues from the middle class. These 'savings' include an individual mandate tax, an employer mandate tax, a potential death of Health Savings Accounts (HSA), a tax on high-end health plans, a new cap on flexible-spending accounts (FSAs), and various tweaks in the tax code to raise new revenue.

And Medicare cuts.

 

[fskimospy]

Also, I've already stated how - they are socialist - our is currently not as much(yet). Do you really think that healthcare lives in a vacuum? <- you haven't addressed that yet. Are you really that ignorant that you think you can suggest healthcare is the same when gov'ts are different?

Then to your other little tantrum - did you not acknowledge that we do not have a free-market system for healthcare? Since we don't, who do you think does the controlling? Oh wait... So since it "sucks" now with meddling - your answer is more meddling and control? BRILLIANT!!!

Also, you can keep whining all you want but you've still not addressed the fact that using other countries is not a "reason" ours "sucks".


lol, yeah I guess it's not superior then since the wealthy come here. :confused; It either is or isn't superior. You can whine about the cost of it being superior and I might agree to a point but just because it's expensive doesn't mean it isn't superior.

So what exactly about their socialist style of government changes their health care system? Exactly what meddling makes our system suck now? (4th time)

Health care systems are judged by how they perform relative to other health care systems.

 

[blackangst1]

This bill will be signed into law, period. The odds are overwhelming in its favor. Individual amendments may be put in or taken out, but a bill that's pretty similar to what we're seeing will go through if for no other reason than the Democrats have far more to lose from passing nothing than from passing something they don't like.

Youre probably right; however, dont surprised if the public option is stripped in congress.

 

[blackangst1]

So what exactly about their socialist style of government changes their health care system? Exactly what meddling makes our system suck now? (4th time)

Health care systems are judged by how they perform relative to other health care systems.

Well, the fact that the government dictates price to start with.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, the fact that the government dictates price to start with.

shhh... I was hoping eventually the light bulb would come on for him. A helping hand up was presented many times but there you go just giving him a handout...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So what exactly about their socialist style of government changes their health care system? Exactly what meddling makes our system suck now? (4th time)

Health care systems are judged by how they perform relative to other health care systems.

No they aren't. They are compared but that doesn't mean they "suck". But lets run with your little scenario for a second. So you take the top 10 industrialized nations on earth and do your little comparison. Does the one in 10th place "suck"? Likely not. Likely it isn't bad and could use some improvement but it clearly wouldn't "suck" based on the comparison alone. Do you get it yet? comparison != reason.

 

[bob4432]

I honestly believe that we need a radical change. I don't even believe for-profit insurance should exist, it's a stupid idea. (No, I don't want the government to ban it, I just think it's dumb.) To be honest my main problem with this bill is that it does not go nearly far enough. We have an excellent blueprint for change in our system from the socialized ones in Europe, and I hope that someday we have the courage to use it. We do want the same thing, a system that is accessible, affordable, and one that provides good quality care. I think it's possible, but I'm not sure if America is ready for it.

you know, nobody is keeping you here against your will. calling europe an "excellent blueprint"......, but you live in CA, so what more could we expect

 

[blackangst1]

I don't think I did. You said our system sucks because of the fraud waste and abuse in the government controlled sector of our health care system. Maybe you should define what you mean by 'suck' then.

When I say our system (in the context of my post), what I mean is our government run system. I dont see much coorilation between the cost of our healthcare vs quality vs the rest of world. What I see is our citizens. We live unhealthy lives, period. And UHC/public option care is NOT going to change our ranking in that area. Its just not. As someone with a chronic disease for 99.9% of my life, and having been part of 2 clinical trials, plus my mother being in medicine, plus several good friends in healthcare (doctors), I can say I have pretty good exposure to our private system, and overall, its very good. Does money buy better care? Of course it does! Should it be that way? *shrug* Its unrealistic to think a local clinic in Harlem should be expected to provide the same care as Mayo.

Anyway Im getting off track. My original point was its foolish to put trust in a public system that has a track record worse than its private counterpart.

 

[fskimospy]

shhh... I was hoping eventually the light bulb would come on for him. A helping hand up was presented many times but there you go just giving him a handout...

That has nothing to do with their system of government, that is the fact that their health care system is a single payer one. Referring to government as an externality when referencing an integral aspect of a health care system would be mangling the English language beyond all recognition.

As for what you consider 'sucking' or not, I'm not going to debate the definition of what 'bad' is with you. (yet another retreat to definitions when you've lost) Regardless, our system is hugely more expensive than other systems with comparable health outcomes. It is significantly inferior at our stated objective for it.

 

[fskimospy]

When I say our system (in the context of my post), what I mean is our government run system. I dont see much coorilation between the cost of our healthcare vs quality vs the rest of world. What I see is our citizens. We live unhealthy lives, period. And UHC/public option care is NOT going to change our ranking in that area. Its just not. As someone with a chronic disease for 99.9% of my life, and having been part of 2 clinical trials, plus my mother being in medicine, plus several good friends in healthcare (doctors), I can say I have pretty good exposure to our private system, and overall, its very good. Does money buy better care? Of course it does! Should it be that way? *shrug* Its unrealistic to think a local clinic in Harlem should be expected to provide the same care as Mayo.

Anyway Im getting off track. My original point was its foolish to put trust in a public system that has a track record worse than its private counterpart.

So why does Australia's system do so much better with citizens that are just as unhealthy? (or at least reasonably close.)

 

[fskimospy]

you know, nobody is keeping you here against your will. calling europe an "excellent blueprint"......, but you live in CA, so what more could we expect

You've probably never spent any significant time in Europe or California. (they are both amazing by the way, you're missing out!) Either way, there are many things about America I like a great deal, the health care system is not one of them. I'm sure there are many things about America that you think are poorly done or need improvement, but I would never suggest that you leave the country because of it... because that would be dumb.

European health systems provide comparable quality at a fraction of the cost, we would be fools not to take a lesson or two from that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That has nothing to do with their system of government, that is the fact that their health care system is a single payer one. Referring to government as an externality when referencing an integral aspect of a health care system would be mangling the English language beyond all recognition.

As for what you consider 'sucking' or not, I'm not going to debate the definition of what 'bad' is with you. (yet another retreat to definitions when you've lost) Regardless, our system is hugely more expensive than other systems with comparable health outcomes. It is significantly inferior at our stated objective for it.

Ah yes, it seems you've run out of diversions so you resort to attacking me for reiterating my original statement and showing how you've failed to discredit the statement with your BS. Again, comparisons aren't a measure of good vs. bad, they are only a measure of rankings if you will. "suck" is a good/bad item when the statement "Face it, our system sucks.". It would be a ranking/comparison if your statement was "Face it, our system sucks compared to... because XYZ". Quantified and qualified.

What is "our stated objective for it" in your mind?


Oh, and the only mangling is your twisting to avoid acknowledging that healthcare isn't in a vacuum - which makes comparing socialist and semi-free market systems difficult.

 

[blackangst1]

So why does Australia's system do so much better with citizens that are just as unhealthy? (or at least reasonably close.)

Without looking at specifics (which I havent done for Australia) I wouldnt know. Just being honest. I wouldnt call them similarar in health though. At least not my personal observations.

 

[Wreckem]

This bill will be signed into law, period. The odds are overwhelming in its favor. Individual amendments may be put in or taken out, but a bill that's pretty similar to what we're seeing will go through if for no other reason than the Democrats have far more to lose from passing nothing than from passing something they don't like.

The House doesnt have the votes without the Stupak Amendment making it into the final version. The Senate doesnt have the votes on the public option either.

I wouldnt say the bill will be signed into law or that their are overhwelming odds that is will pass because 1. passage is on shakey groung. 2. the odds are 50/50 or less. This bill is never going to pass because its going to stretch into early spring before a final vote finally occurs and moderate dems won't make themselves the sacraficial lambs. If there is government subsidized/funded abortion in the final bill. The bill is DOA when it returns to the House. The only Dems that have alot to lose are the far left Dems.

If I was a gambling man, Id bet that the Democrats lose their majority whether it passes or not.

 

[blackangst1]

That has nothing to do with their system of government, that is the fact that their health care system is a single payer one. Referring to government as an externality when referencing an integral aspect of a health care system would be mangling the English language beyond all recognition.

As for what you consider 'sucking' or not, I'm not going to debate the definition of what 'bad' is with you. (yet another retreat to definitions when you've lost) Regardless, our system is hugely more expensive than other systems with comparable health outcomes. It is significantly inferior at our stated objective for it.

Youve missed the point. Its not a matter who pays, its a matter of who sets the price. HUGE difference.

 

[fskimospy]

The House doesnt have the votes without the Stupak Amendment making it into the final version. The Senate doesnt have the votes on the public option either.

I wouldnt say the bill will be signed into law or that their are overhwelming odds that is will pass because 1. passage is on shakey groung. 2. the odds are 50/50 or less. This bill is never going to pass because its going to stretch into early spring before a final vote finally occurs and moderate dems won't make themselves the sacraficial lambs. If there is government subsidized/funded abortion in the final bill. The bill is DOA when it returns to the House. The only Dems that have alot to lose are the far left Dems.

If I was a gambling man, Id bet that the Democrats lose their majority whether it passes or not.

Well if you're a gambling man I'd gladly take bets with you on the bill's passage. In addition it is a fool's errand to bet on electoral outcomes a year in advance.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah yes, it seems you've run out of diversions so you resort to attacking me for reiterating my original statement and showing how you've failed to discredit the statement with your BS. Again, comparisons aren't a measure of good vs. bad, they are only a measure of rankings if you will. "suck" is a good/bad item when the statement "Face it, our system sucks.". It would be a ranking/comparison if your statement was "Face it, our system sucks compared to... because XYZ". Quantified and qualified.

What is "our stated objective for it" in your mind?


Oh, and the only mangling is your twisting to avoid acknowledging that healthcare isn't in a vacuum - which makes comparing socialist and semi-free market systems difficult.

I'm not trying to avoid anything, I'm trying to get you to actually say something concrete so I can trash you. You've just spouted out crazy ideological nonsense that you refuse to back up. (because you can't) You appear to be unable to speak outside of broad, right wing extremist platitudes.

Once you can articulate an argument, get back to me. The two questions I asked you were exceedingly simple and someone with even the slightest interest in honest discourse would have no trouble answering them. They aren't loaded questions, they aren't leading you anywhere, and they are totally fair.

 

[fskimospy]

Youve missed the point. Its not a matter who pays, its a matter of who sets the price. HUGE difference.

Are you implying that the prices these countries pay for health care are artificially and unsustainably low? If so, what are you basing this on? (I have never heard any credible source claim that the health care payments other countries make are such) If they are not unsustainably or artificially low, then their system is simply better.