Question about "Public Option" health care, NOT about if we should have it or not

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Q1: Obama hasn't been in office for a full year yet and he has 3 more. Why is he (and congress) so concerned about pushing this health care through now?

Health care in America will represent 17.7%-17.8% of GDP in 2009. The increase in costs as a percentage of GDP from 2008 was a major leap (largest in history?) and it's only going higher without immediate action (some fear 20% of GDP in a few short years).

Even Richard Nixon has got soul ....

So why do none of the benefits of this wonderful plan take effect until 2013? The answer is pretty easy....you see Obama doesn't want to face re-election with the actual results of the plan known, just the promises.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey Boo,
Still waiting to hear what you know about health care (besides GDP, republicans! and insurance companies!)

How many people have you taken care of? Kept from getting ill or helped managed their disease? Saved any lives at all with your knowledge? Being a supporter of all this you must have done something to be qualified to talk about this, or is it a case of you knowing more about something because you have been afforded the luxury of never having to do it?

Ya got...anything?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
^^^^^^
No facts. Emotional. Anecdotal.


Yah got .... anything ?

Yeah, I deal with this every day. Do you? You ever try to figure out why a claim won't pay? You ever try to deal with an agency that says a service was provided which may conflict with what you are trying to do but they won't tell you where it was done in spite of the fact that it's perfectly legal and proper to find out?

Fact- The Dems could have gotten expert opinion in advance of legislation for this specific purpose within the context of actually implementing a program. Nope.

Let me guess. You only know what you read in the news, right?

Let me guess. You process Medicaid claims and that makes you an expert on health care in America? That simple fact does not lend any credence to your contributions to the debate or make you any type of 'authority' on the matter.

Originally posted by: Ronstang

So why do none of the benefits of this wonderful plan take effect until 2013? The answer is pretty easy....you see Obama doesn't want to face re-election with the actual results of the plan known, just the promises.

What is your point? Your argument is specious at best.

Please provide an example to me of a major reform and reorganization which took less than three years.

What did the reorganization of the armed forces in 1947 do to establish proper management, procedures, divisions-of-authority and internal controls? Over what time frame?

The 'Dept of Homeland Security' Act in 2002 combined 22 Federal agencies. To date the GAO has issued more than 400 reports regarding its organizational structure and management. DHS has yet to establish a comprehensive plan to address the transformation, integration, management, and overall mission challenges.

Just because republicans suck at governance and organizational development is not an excuse to promote specious arguments against efforts at reform of our on-going crisis in health care in this country.

This ain't 'I Dream of Jeannie'. You can't cross your arms, bob your head and 'poof', work magic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well no, I PROVIDE heathcare, and have to DEAL with medicaid. That makes me an expert on what really happens in the relationship between health care provider, patient, and insurance including government run plans. I have a real world clue.

You? "Cough, HACK"

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well no, I PROVIDE heathcare, and have to DEAL with medicaid. That makes me an expert on what really happens in the relationship between health care provider, patient, and insurance including government run plans. I have a real world clue.

You? "Cough, HACK"

Many on this board do as well; turn your self-important horn tooting down just a notch, for crying out loud.


:roll:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well no, I PROVIDE heathcare, and have to DEAL with medicaid. That makes me an expert on what really happens in the relationship between health care provider, patient, and insurance including government run plans. I have a real world clue.

You? "Cough, HACK"

Me?

I worked as the HMFIC nearly 12 years providing 'group' health care to public organizations consisting of as little as 33 employees to hundreds of employees.

I organized claims processing procedures in each of those organizations

I also worked to establish a self-funded consortium of local gov'ts in my state, complete with negotiations for reinsurance, regarding every level of hospitalization, primary care and disability.

And for over 15 years I functioned as the primary care-giver to my parental units (while catching carpentry jobs on the side to subsist):

Maternal: Terminal cancer over 7 years (5 of which were difficult but generally acceptable - the final 2 just plain sucked)

Paternal: Over 8 years, cardiac event and 1 year later a debilitating stroke requiring round-the-clock care.

I can go into my own 'anecdotal' experiences in whatever detail at whatever level you care to discuss from over 35 years.

So. How long have you been at it?



edit: I forgot to add (shamefully): I worked on the local level for the re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972.

 

[shadow9d9]

Health care has been studied for 20 years... it isn't rushed.

The economy failed from greedy corporations.. just like the health care one.. you want to wait for things to get worse from them like the financial cos?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well no, I PROVIDE heathcare, and have to DEAL with medicaid. That makes me an expert on what really happens in the relationship between health care provider, patient, and insurance including government run plans. I have a real world clue.

You? "Cough, HACK"

Me?

I worked as the HMFIC nearly 12 years providing 'group' health care to public organizations consisting of as little as 33 employees to hundreds of employees.

I organized claims processing procedures in each of those organizations

I also worked to establish a self-funded consortium of local gov'ts in my state, complete with negotiations for reinsurance, regarding every level of hospitalization, primary care and disability.

And for over 15 years I functioned as the primary care-giver to my parental units (while catching carpentry jobs on the side to subsist):

Maternal: Terminal cancer over 7 years (5 of which were difficult but generally acceptable - the final 2 just plain sucked)

Paternal: Over 8 years, cardiac event and 1 year later a debilitating stroke requiring round-the-clock care.

I can go into my own 'anecdotal' experiences in whatever detail at whatever level you care to discuss from over 35 years.

So. How long have you been at it?



edit: I forgot to add (shamefully): I worked on the local level for the re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972.

You took care of your own, and that's a good thing in all seriousness. But tell me, how did you treat them? I mean, when they were sick did you diagnose? Did you perform surgery? Did you use your carpentry skills to discern what was needed, and as importantly what to avoid?

When you worked on the insurance side, did you get frustrated because you personally were trying to provide care to a sick child, but couldn't? How long have I been doing this? In one form or another for thirty something years. Sometimes it was determining drug therapy. Sometimes it was marching through jungle to rescue downed crews. Sometimes it was providing emergency medicine to people in hell hole pits of countries.

What the Dems have done is push their agenda through. No one knows what the hell it means, but by heavens were going to have it. No expert opinions needed. As I've said, the Dems could have had practioners and providers from a to z to assist, but no thanks. The DC partisans have said it's good for you. Stop asking questions.

I can't sign on to that. YMMV.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Health care has been studied for 20 years... it isn't rushed.

The economy failed from greedy corporations.. just like the health care one.. you want to wait for things to get worse from them like the financial cos?

So was the Iraq war. We got that right, eh?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Health care has been studied for 20 years... it isn't rushed.

The economy failed from greedy corporations.. just like the health care one.. you want to wait for things to get worse from them like the financial cos?

So was the Iraq war. We got that right, eh?

That is an incredibly dumb response.

Fear!!!! Booga booga!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Health care has been studied for 20 years... it isn't rushed.

The economy failed from greedy corporations.. just like the health care one.. you want to wait for things to get worse from them like the financial cos?

So was the Iraq war. We got that right, eh?

That is an incredibly dumb response.

Fear!!!! Booga booga!

TERRORIST SUPPORTER!

So tell me, in this 20 years who commissioned the studies by pros in the fields to implement health care (not in theory) to deal with the aging population, how it's most effectively funded, what regulations will be placed on providers to deal with it? When was this done? Is it timely? What's the context? What health care providers were involved? Consumer advocates?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Sorry, HR, I just don't care to engage you in this discussion, anymore. I'll leave you with this:

In 1980 health care costs represented 8.8% of GDP in the US. By the year 2000 it was 13.2% of GDP and this year will most likely consume over 17.7% of GDP.

And if I remember correctly (from the Elizabeth Warren thread), the cost (for less care) for the average family of four has risen over 75% since 1970.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Sorry, HR, I just don't care to engage you in this discussion, anymore. I'll leave you with this:

In 1980 health care costs represented 8.8% of GDP in the US. By the year 2000 it was 13.2% of GDP and this year will most likely consume over 17.7% of GDP.

And if I remember correctly (from the Elizabeth Warren thread), the cost (for less care) for the average family of four has risen over 75% since 1970.

We'll end this on a polite note. Health care DOES need to be addressed. It's not perfect by any means. Because I deal with problems which are created by government policies does NOT mean I haven't any with private plans either, however if someone wants me to get on board with reform, show me a detailed plan with pros and cons. Maybe a few choices. Show the methodology, the reasoning. I don't see much of that, but a lot of shoes being banged on the table. Without resorting to "evil insurance companies" show me how in practice this would be good for someone who still has parents to take care of. Not hope, not change because it's something different, but that it is in fact better by demonstrable means. Someone once said that people who like law and sausage shouldn't see either made. I don't want to have to add health care to that as well.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Think of insurance companies as gambling casinos, the house always wins.

Why the fuck should we treat health care like gambling?

Without a public option, health care reform is pointless, there won't be a new casino in town that pays out nearly as much as it takes in to pressure the for profit casinos to give out more winnings.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Public Health care has been an issue since what the New Deal? I hardly called that rushing it.

Really? The bills in Congress right now have been sitting there that long? Everyone should have been able to read them by now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Think of insurance companies as gambling casinos, the house always wins.

Why the fuck should we treat health care like gambling?

Without a public option, health care reform is pointless, there won't be a new casino in town that pays out nearly as much as it takes in to pressure the for profit casinos to give out more winnings.

Ok, what if the public option cuts your ED budget? It won't? How do you know?

Let's see what's under the hood, then talk to me.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Think of insurance companies as gambling casinos, the house always wins.

Why the fuck should we treat health care like gambling?

Without a public option, health care reform is pointless, there won't be a new casino in town that pays out nearly as much as it takes in to pressure the for profit casinos to give out more winnings.

Ok, what if the public option cuts your ED budget? It won't? How do you know?

Let's see what's under the hood, then talk to me.

Check this out

http://crooksandliars.com/susi...-option-saves-even-mor

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Think of insurance companies as gambling casinos, the house always wins.

Why the fuck should we treat health care like gambling?

Without a public option, health care reform is pointless, there won't be a new casino in town that pays out nearly as much as it takes in to pressure the for profit casinos to give out more winnings.

Ok, what if the public option cuts your ED budget? It won't? How do you know?

Let's see what's under the hood, then talk to me.

Check this out

http://crooksandliars.com/susi...-option-saves-even-mor

So he gets his budget cut. OK, at least I know.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Sorry, HR, I just don't care to engage you in this discussion, anymore. I'll leave you with this:

In 1980 health care costs represented 8.8% of GDP in the US. By the year 2000 it was 13.2% of GDP and this year will most likely consume over 17.7% of GDP.

And if I remember correctly (from the Elizabeth Warren thread), the cost (for less care) for the average family of four has risen over 75% since 1970.

Could that be directly proportional to the number of Mcdonalds establishments that have cropped up across our great country in the last 30 years?

Anyway, I think most people agree that costs need to be controlled. It seems we have two camps... one that thinks the government is capable of controlling medical costs by getting into the healthcare industry and those that think reform can come in other private market forms.

I am grouped with the latter of the two... but I realize the stranglehold that the healthcare industry has on our legislators.

I see government run healthcare as a financial disaster... either that or healthcare in this country will rival Haiti for quality in order to bring costs in order. Sure people say good things about medicare... because the government throws a shit ton of money at it instead of fixing the problems.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Q1: Obama hasn't been in office for a full year yet and he has 3 more. Why is he (and congress) so concerned about pushing this health care through now?

Health care in America will represent 17.7%-17.8% of GDP in 2009. The increase in costs as a percentage of GDP from 2008 was a major leap (largest in history?) and it's only going higher without immediate action (some fear 20% of GDP in a few short years).

Even Richard Nixon has got soul ....

And when those with coverage are taxed more so more is spent on "those without coverage"; exactly how will this lower vice raise the gdp value spent on healthcare.

 

[Modelworks]

Obama promised the public that bills would be posted on the internet and the public would have 5 days to review them before they were passed, that has not happened with the bailouts or anything else. We were told we would be given the time to look through this stuff, he was going to CHANGE all the rushing through of bills. All we have gotten is the same old BS of rush it through so the public can't read it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

 

[cubby1223]

This is the whole problem with what the Democrats are doing...

Health care and paying for health care are two separate things.

The Dems plans basically just shuffle around who is paying for the health care and in what form, taxes or premiums.

If reducing fraud and waste in medicare can eliminate $500b over 10 years, then let's do that. If tort reform can reduce $50b, then let's do that, but the Dems ain't. Allow for interstate insurance plans, but the Dem's ain't. Allow for high deductible plans, but the Dem's aint. Change up the rules on pharmaceutical companies so they don't have a monopoly, but the Dems ain't.

It's just a shell game they're playing where the only winner is the federal government.