US National Healthcare Bill

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
So you mean the government is going to mandate that everybody pays for an expensive product/service from one of only a few players in the industry, an industry that in recent years has seen huge annual increases in premiums, far out-pacing inflation?
And an industry which has low profit margins despite this huge annual increases.

BTW the cost of college goes up faster than the pace of inflation but the Democrats don't seem to worry about it... wonder why
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The following article compares the founding priciples of the Democrat Party with what the Democrats now represent.

Obamacare, what it is and what it isn't, from another perspective.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/12/welcome_to_the_new_gilded_age.html

Welcome to the New Gilded Age
By Jay Cost
RealClearPolitics.com
December 16, 2009

After months of deliberation, negotiation, and cogitation - the Democratic wise men of the United States Senate have resolved that the nation needs health care reform so badly, this awful compromised reform bill must be passed.

Unbelievable.

Let's review the core elements of this compromised product. There are a host of reforms designed to expand the number of people who can acquire health insurance. Because this is supposed to raise premiums, there will be an individual mandate to guarantee that all Americans acquire insurance. This is supposed to lower premiums. But how to coerce Americans to buy health insurance if they don't want to? There are tax penalties. Meanwhile, to help Americans pay for this mandate, the government will be offering subsidies to those who qualify.

What's not in it? A public option or an expansion of Medicare. This means that the United States government will require citizens to contract with private corporations as a condition of citizenship - whether they want to or not. If they don't, the feds will levy a tax on them, the revenues of which will ultimately find their way to the insurance companies.

Let's not forget the process that got us here. All year, the Democrats have talked about some form of public option. Besides the Senate Finance Committee bill - which nobody except Max Baucus really liked - the plan was always to link an individual mandate with some sort of public option. Then, in an instant, simply to win the vote of Joe Lieberman, the Senate leadership drops the public option element. There was no talk about whether what was left was perverse, whether this is a compromise in the worst sense of the word. And now, there is a push to get the bill passed before Christmas, not because that's best for the country - but because the startlingly irresponsible 44th President correctly intuits that health care is pushing his numbers down, and he wants to move on to talk about jobs.

Amazingly, this bill has produced the broadest political coalition I have seen in my lifetime. Peruse the liberal blogs and you'll discover widespread disgust at this corporate boon. Cruise over to the conservative sites, and you'll encounter much the same thing. Then, check out the opinion polls and you'll find a mass public that is staunchly opposed to this bill.

And yet Democrats in the Senate have decided that all of us - left, right, and center - are wrong. We need this bill.

Welcome to the new gilded age. The original hope behind the 17th Amendment - the direct election of senators - was to get the upper chamber out of the pocket of mega-industries that could buy and sell senators. So much for that, I suppose. This has to be one of the biggest giveaways to corporate interests in the nation's history.

Andrew Jackson must be spinning in his grave this evening. The Democratic Party was founded in opposition to "corrupt bargains" among entrenched interests that Democrats believed were undermining the will of the people. Today, such interests are called "stakeholders." They are to be wooed, bought off, and neutralized. Can't afford a K Street lobbyist? Sorry, you're not a stakeholder. Don't like this bill? Eh...you don't know what's good for you. You're either a tea-bagging moron or a gutless liberal who will fold sooner or later.

Like I said, Jackson must be spinning.

I wonder what FDR and LBJ would think of this, too. As we all know, the Democrats plan to cut nearly $500 billion from Medicare to fund this monstrosity. Medicare is a single-payer system for seniors. It's the ultimate "public option," a product of Johnson expanding Roosevelt's social insurance concept to medical care for the elderly. Today's Democrats plan to reduce its revenues by $500 billion to pay for subsidies that will ultimately find their way over to...private insurance companies.

Many Democrats on Capitol Hill have talked themselves into the absurd notion that this is better than doing nothing. That kind of myopia is a typical symptom of the Swamp Fever, so I'm not surprised. Still, they had better look out. Above all, they are grossly underestimating the wisdom of the American people, and they are ignoring the power that the Constitution grants them. This is a grave error. When the people catch wind of the full scope of this bill, and they will, there will be hell to pay. The public has been known to vote against big business and big government. Somehow, this compromised bill manages to deliver both - big government and big business, joined together, with the little guy forced to participate.

If the Democrats pass this bill, the Republicans will pound them relentlessly and mercilessly in next year's midterm campaign. All across the country right now, would-be Republican candidates can sense that this is their chance finally to get into Congress. They're already starting to toss their hats into the ring. Many more will follow because they know what the public thinks of this. They know that they'll find plenty of donors to bankroll those ads talking about the individual mandate, the insurance company giveaways funded by Medicare cuts, the victory for special interests, and how it all happened behind closed doors. And they know what kind of effect these ads are going to have.

Democrats were bound to lose seats next year because it is a midterm and they're in charge. They were bound to lose extra seats because it's a recession. But if they pass this bill, God help them. The people sure as hell won't.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
i don't see why everyone thinks medicare is this big savings program. medicare spends way more per covered person than the NHS or the french or germany. but "ITS GOT ONLY 2% OVERHEAD!!!" they say. of course, that's only if you don't count practically everything that any reasonable person would count as overhead.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Neither side wanted improved health care. The Reps were OK with how things are, and the Dems wanted to write laws and make regulations. They never bothered to do the things which might improve health care. It was all about looking good. Of course they could have had people other than politicians ( ones who actually knew something (anything) about health care), but no, all they had to do was write bills. Lots of ink, lots of wrangling and never any serious intent to make beneficial changes.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
i don't see why everyone thinks medicare is this big savings program. medicare spends way more per covered person than the NHS or the french or germany. but "ITS GOT ONLY 2% OVERHEAD!!!" they say. of course, that's only if you don't count practically everything that any reasonable person would count as overhead.

It's also how they pass their jobs onto providers who spend a significant portion of their time not providing care but filling out forms. Last statistic I saw was 8 hours per physician per week, not including the time other staff puts in. I spent a couple hours yesterday myself trying to get claims paid. What a ridiculous waste of valuable time.
 

runzwithsizorz

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,497
14
76
Health care reform as now legislated is a government power grab, period. It will control 1/6th of the economy. It will not improve health care, but make it more expensive, it will not cover millions of citizens, it will rob 600 billion from Medicare, and its ultimate goal will be government regulation and intrusion into another aspect of your life.
Health care NEEDS improving...yes! So why aren't these practical and relatively inexpensive provisions in the bill????

1. Allow small business to create co-ops to receive the lower costs large corporations and government employees have.
2. Allow health care insurers to compete across state lines (and subject to anti trust laws).
3. Tort reform! Get the ambulance chasers out of health care, and allow only legitimate law suits (i.e. gross negligence) to go to court. There are many options to do this, including boards of review, loser pays all costs, etc. Your medical bills reflect a doctor's terrible insurance costs.
4. And the obvious...prevent the massive fraud rampant in Medicare abd Medicaid that costs taxpayers millions...if the Feds can't do it, find an independent agency that can!
There are many other points to be raised, but I wonder why health care reform can't start with these obvious fixes, instead of attempting to overhaul the entire system and create another huge and ineficient govt. bureaucracy.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
So you mean the government is going to mandate that everybody pays for an expensive product/service from one of only a few players in the industry, an industry that in recent years has seen huge annual increases in premiums, far out-pacing inflation?

Pretty much, thanks to Joe Lieberman. The original idea was to mandate coverage but provide options, now it's been bastardized to the point where it's basically a give away to Connecticut insurance companies Joe is representing.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Allowing health insurers to compete across state lines is a terrible idea, because they would be able to screw their customers with impunity while hiding behind lax regulations in their home states or even US territories.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Health care reform as now legislated is a government power grab, period. It will control 1/6th of the economy. It will not improve health care, but make it more expensive, it will not cover millions of citizens, it will rob 600 billion from Medicare, and its ultimate goal will be government regulation and intrusion into another aspect of your life.
Health care NEEDS improving...yes! So why aren't these practical and relatively inexpensive provisions in the bill????

1. Allow small business to create co-ops to receive the lower costs large corporations and government employees have.
2. Allow health care insurers to compete across state lines (and subject to anti trust laws).
3. Tort reform! Get the ambulance chasers out of health care, and allow only legitimate law suits (i.e. gross negligence) to go to court. There are many options to do this, including boards of review, loser pays all costs, etc. Your medical bills reflect a doctor's terrible insurance costs.
4. And the obvious...prevent the massive fraud rampant in Medicare abd Medicaid that costs taxpayers millions...if the Feds can't do it, find an independent agency that can!
There are many other points to be raised, but I wonder why health care reform can't start with these obvious fixes, instead of attempting to overhaul the entire system and create another huge and ineficient govt. bureaucracy.

Quoted for truth. Nothing that can be done by the private sector is more efficiently done by government. There's a reason that the most vocal advocates of the "public option" are also the most vocal advocates of a single payer system - they know that no insurance company can compete with the federal government that can mandate what they have to cover and what they have to provide free while relaying on taxes to fund its own plan. The "public option" was nothing more than a plan to suck all the money from the insurance companies on the way to true socialized medicine.

A Medicare buy-in plan for high-risk individuals wouldn't be quite so bad, sort of like SR-22 for high-risk drivers. But an option for anyone to buy into a government plan is a blatant attempt to backdoor single payer. Politicians wanting single payer need to honest and advocate that rather than attempting to destroy an industry on the sly.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,252
55,805
136
i don't see why everyone thinks medicare is this big savings program. medicare spends way more per covered person than the NHS or the french or germany. but "ITS GOT ONLY 2% OVERHEAD!!!" they say. of course, that's only if you don't count practically everything that any reasonable person would count as overhead.

And when people do count that, it STILL has a significantly lower overhead.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
And when people do count that, it STILL has a significantly lower overhead.


We really don't know about that. Consider that if you and I had a relationship where I passed off much of my work to you I'd certainly cut my overhead. Would you be praising that person? No, you'd swear like we do. We do it for "free" which means we spend less time giving care.

That's never brought up by those claiming low overheads. It merely shifts the cost and time spent filling out complicated and contradictory forms to others.

You can be sure it isn't really free, but then no one really wanted to know how things really work. They wanted a low number and a piece of paper to be passed.

Quality was never Job #1
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,252
55,805
136
We really don't know about that. Consider that if you and I had a relationship where I passed off much of my work to you I'd certainly cut my overhead. Would you be praising that person? No, you'd swear like we do. We do it for "free" which means we spend less time giving care.

That's never brought up by those claiming low overheads. It merely shifts the cost and time spent filling out complicated and contradictory forms to others.

You can be sure it isn't really free, but then no one really wanted to know how things really work. They wanted a low number and a piece of paper to be passed.

Quality was never Job #1

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf

It's not the last word on the subject or anything, but they have made an effort to put just those costs that you talk about in there, and it still comes out noticeably lower.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf

It's not the last word on the subject or anything, but they have made an effort to put just those costs that you talk about in there, and it still comes out noticeably lower.

We spend hours a week on this stuff, and about 2/3 of that time is spent on government plans.

We are at about break even with Medicare D but there's talk of cutting that too. at a loss with Medicaid.

Our last whoring governor in NY wasn't content with that. He decided to counter "fraud". To do so he hired temps to go around to pharmacies and fine them if they forgot to write the time down on a verbal order. No one new about that, because it was buried somewhere under thousands of pages of regulations.

These guys were well armed and had been coached on how to get the most money in fines for the ridiculous.

Of course he was praised for tackling the criminals in health care (note hefty sarcasm) and as a result everyone took a net loss for that year.

Now we aren't talking billing for things not delivered, or done in bad faith. It was a paperwork fine of millions.

Now that doesn't factor into insurance "overhead" but from our point of view we have to figure that somewhere there is some "t" not crossed at 25k an incident multiplied times some arbitrary factor. It's a real cost of doing business.

Seriously, it's charity on health care's part and more in some cases to provide care to state and fed programs. Spending an hour on a claim we are going to get paid two bucks gross while not being able to do much else is stupid, yet there it is.

What would have been beneficial is to examine how billing works and how to streamline things rather than introducing more confusion. Not even thought about. That's one main reason I was against establishing rules and regs that no one understands. It's ridiculous.

It just gets more complicated and expensive to do this.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
Pretty much, thanks to Joe Lieberman. The original idea was to mandate coverage but provide options, now it's been bastardized to the point where it's basically a give away to Connecticut insurance companies Joe is representing.


I feel obama should just friggen cut his losses and re run the whole thing through the system again...

You know like bush does. If he doesn't get his way, keep sending it through till it happens.

I could care less what happens at this point.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
What's not in it? A public option or an expansion of Medicare. This means that the United States government will require citizens to contract with private corporations as a condition of citizenship - whether they want to or not.

Pretty much sums it up. I've been an Obama supporter, sometimes more than others, since January 2008. Today I aligned myself behind Dean and will be in firm opposition to this administration should this monstrosity be promoted any further.

If the public option is to be removed, the mandate is to be removed, and we will have to accept failure in the form of token insurance industry reform. Or nothing. If the politicians are too stupid to fix it now, it'll simply have to wait until disaster is more directly staring them in the face. Either way, reform will come.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
What's not in it? A public option or an expansion of Medicare. This means that the United States government will require citizens to contract with private corporations as a condition of citizenship - whether they want to or not.

Oh you mean like Car Insurance? State law in all 50 states require you to BUY INTO some sort of private auto insurance.

That's not the point... The point was having a government option that was suppose to be affordable.... Since that's no longer on the table it's just a big CF as far as I'm concerned.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
What's not in it? A public option or an expansion of Medicare. This means that the United States government will require citizens to contract with private corporations as a condition of citizenship - whether they want to or not.

Oh you mean like Car Insurance? State law in all 50 states require you to BUY INTO some sort of private auto insurance.

That's not the point... The point was having a government option that was suppose to be affordable.... Since that's no longer on the table it's just a big CF as far as I'm concerned.

Hey if people are forced to buy insurance, just like magic they are covered! Since the government is behind this, it's wonderful.

Welcome aboard.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
What's not in it? A public option or an expansion of Medicare. This means that the United States government will require citizens to contract with private corporations as a condition of citizenship - whether they want to or not.

Oh you mean like Car Insurance? State law in all 50 states require you to BUY INTO some sort of private auto insurance.

That's not the point... The point was having a government option that was suppose to be affordable.... Since that's no longer on the table it's just a big CF as far as I'm concerned.

Owning and driving a car is not a condition of citizenship. It is an act that you choose to take on that carries high risk to the public.

Each person's health care costs, in contrast, are not their own choice. These costs are, however, necessary and guaranteed. You will get sick at some point. In that way it is more comparable to national defense. We all need it, but don't really choose to need it.

So a more proper analogy would be to privatize national defense, and to mandate citizens carry security coverage. You must pay Lockheed and Boeing for aerial coverage plans. That is, Lockheed and Boeing determine what is included in an aerial coverage plan rather than the United States Air Force. Sound good?

Of course it doesn't. We need a public option.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Owning and driving a car is not a condition of citizenship. It is an act that you choose to take on that carries high risk to the public.

Each person's health care costs, in contrast, are not their own choice. These costs are, however, necessary and guaranteed. You will get sick at some point. In that way it is more comparable to national defense. We all need it, but don't really choose to need it.

So a more proper analogy would be to privatize national defense, and to mandate citizens carry security coverage. You must pay Lockheed and Boeing for aerial coverage plans. That is, Lockheed and Boeing determine what is included in an aerial coverage plan rather than the United States Air Force. Sound good?

Of course it doesn't. We need a public option.

Yes, because the public option will mow your lawn and walk your dog!
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
Owning and driving a car is not a condition of citizenship. It is an act that you choose to take on that carries high risk to the public.

Each person's health care costs, in contrast, are not their own choice. These costs are, however, necessary and guaranteed. You will get sick at some point. In that way it is more comparable to national defense. We all need it, but don't really choose to need it.

So a more proper analogy would be to privatize national defense, and to mandate citizens carry security coverage. You must pay Lockheed and Boeing for aerial coverage plans. That is, Lockheed and Boeing determine what is included in an aerial coverage plan rather than the United States Air Force. Sound good?

Of course it doesn't. We need a public option.

Well, if you re-read my comment I said it wasn't the point... The point was to have a public option. I know some people don't like that option but that was the whole debate, with out it, it's pointless. Just back to square Zero.

Oh well...

Will be interesting to see what the CF has passed when it's done and over. I'm sure it won't be anything good in it.

I think anyone that bulked at taking the abortion option out should have been shot and fired on the spot for crossing the lines of church and state.

Then maybe we could of passed something good huh Hayabusa Rider... Could start walking the cat too!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Well, if you re-read my comment I said it wasn't the point... The point was to have a public option. I know some people don't like that option but that was the whole debate, with out it, it's pointless. Just back to square Zero.

Oh well...

Will be interesting to see what the CF has passed when it's done and over. I'm sure it won't be anything good in it.

I think anyone that bulked at taking the abortion option out should have been shot and fired on the spot for crossing the lines of church and state.

Then maybe we could of passed something good huh Hayabusa Rider... Could start walking the cat too!

Going back to the whole beginning of this, it was abundantly clear that there were only two things supporters were interested in. "Public option" and "UHC".

Some got the two conflated, but hey there's a surprise.

Anyway when asked questions about just what that meant in concrete terms I distinctly recall one person (not you) going on the "you are a right wing shill just supporting the insurance companies!!!" , well that was very much the jist of things.

Oddly enough pretty much the same happened when one questioned claims about Iraq. Then it was terrorists.

There isn't much difference really, it's all a faith based initiative. Iraq was invaded based on the belief that Saddam was a serious threat, and don't you dare question it. We have data!

Same with the public option. By some miraculous reason it will cut the costs of health insurance (I assume by a good deal, but then again no one could really say), and don't question that. We have data!

Well, no. No one could demonstrate how paying less was going to improve the quality of health care, nor could anyone suggest a mechanism where prices wouldn't skyrocket due to demographics. Alzheimer's isn't free.

Don't ask because we can't tell you how, but if you don't support this bill you are for the status quo. Remember that? Of course now that's all changed, and it's not fair, sniff.

Well, it wasn't fair to expect people to support that which no one could explain outside of "France is cheap".

Now it isn't going to happen, but it would be nice if someone actually said "hey, just what are we dealing with, what can be done, and what is the real cost. Let's get people who have advocates or professionals to give us some facts."

Of course that's what was said months back, and that lead to a round of "corporate shill".

So those who said anything was better than nothing got just what they wanted. If people weren't screwed it would be funny, but just like Iraq, the politicians will be exempt from what they foist on others.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
Well, it would have been nice to have been shown an age chart and monthly premium before everyone got in a huff or was it just all gonna be slammed into one plan and everyone pay 20 bucks a month regardless of age... I suppose after passing this ball of wax they could have made up their own numbers and rammed it down everyone's throat. Tho, we will never know what that would of been. Now they changed this shit so much at the last minute I'm not in favor of it but as you put it, how do I know what the real cost would of been anyway?

When Obama says Affordable Insurance just what was his idea of "affordable" ... But that is past now he's off the hook, and it's too late to be against something that was changed to appease some asshole.

Anyway, I agree with some of your points.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Obama had a chance to govern from the center, unite the country, and pass meaningful health care reform on a bipartisan basis.

Instead he left the job to the whack job liberals like Nancy Pelosi who tried to pushed something on the American people they simply didn't want.

There are several things that both sides (at least the Democrats claim to) support such as deregulation (portability). There is no reason why these reforms shouldn't be passed.
(but we all know the Liberals want UHC or nothing so nothing will change)

I especially like the part where the Liberals and Obama try to blame the GOP when the Democrats have a super majority in the senate and there is nothing the GOP can do to stop this legislation.
(I mean they did give a 300 million dollar bribe to the senator from NO for her vote...)

This is nothing short of probably the biggest failure by a president in modern history.