ObamaCare...coming soon

Member logins have been temporarily disabled. Please try again later.
User Forum Topic
Submitted by meadandale on July 16, 2009 - 11:48am

Seems like modeling our system after the Canadians should be a great idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 12, 2009 - 7:52pm.

SK in CV wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we're even discussing it again.[/quote]

SK: So Big Insurance "invented the plan" to disrupt the town hall meetings? And? How does this affect the vote on Obamacare? Last time I checked, citizens don't vote on legislation, legislators do.

The Dems control the White House and Congress and don't need a single GOP vote to pass this legislation.

As to Billy Tauzin's back room meeting with Obama, it isn't "past tense" yet. Certain Dems have said they won't honor the agreement, but that hasn't happened yet.

And, I've heard that Big Insurance has been contributing to advertisements SUPPORTING Obamacare, not opposing it. I could be wrong, and I would need to do some checking in order to assert that properly, but that is my understanding.

Again, so what if there were third parties out there "disrupting" town hall meetings? That has nothing to do with the passage of this legislation, any more than Limbaugh or Hannity yapping about it do.

The Dems completely control the destiny of this legislation, correct? Or do I have that wrong as well?

Submitted by SK in CV on August 12, 2009 - 8:48pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

SK: So Big Insurance "invented the plan" to disrupt the town hall meetings? And? How does this affect the vote on Obamacare? Last time I checked, citizens don't vote on legislation, legislators do.

The Dems control the White House and Congress and don't need a single GOP vote to pass this legislation.

As to Billy Tauzin's back room meeting with Obama, it isn't "past tense" yet. Certain Dems have said they won't honor the agreement, but that hasn't happened yet.

And, I've heard that Big Insurance has been contributing to advertisements SUPPORTING Obamacare, not opposing it. I could be wrong, and I would need to do some checking in order to assert that properly, but that is my understanding.

Again, so what if there were third parties out there "disrupting" town hall meetings? That has nothing to do with the passage of this legislation, any more than Limbaugh or Hannity yapping about it do.

The Dems completely control the destiny of this legislation, correct? Or do I have that wrong as well?

(I think I got this quote thing fixed)

I don't disagree with anything you say here. The dems are, or at least should be in control. It's not the deathers at the town hall meetings that will be doing the voting.

My only real issue was your assertion that the insurance companies are supportive of reform. They're not, unless it is a watered down, do nothing reform that doesn't include a public option. The kind of reform will do more damage than good for all concerned including democrats and republicans politically, taxpayers, the uninsured, the under-insured and health care providers. (For profit hospitals will probably make out just fine.) Everyone except for insurance companies and big pharma.

Tauzin still has a deal. It just isn't binding on anyone in Congress. And Obama is unlikely to push it.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 12, 2009 - 9:28pm.

SK in CV wrote:

My only real issue was your assertion that the insurance companies are supportive of reform. They're not, unless it is a watered down, do nothing reform that doesn't include a public option. The kind of reform will do more damage than good for all concerned including democrats and republicans politically, taxpayers, the uninsured, the under-insured and health care providers. (For profit hospitals will probably make out just fine.) Everyone except for insurance companies and big pharma.

SK: Like I said, I may well be wrong on Big Insurance (and having worked for Big Insurance in a prior life, I can well imagine that they aren't for this).

However, I'm more intrigued by the Dem's attitude about this whole situation, especially the town hall meetings. Listening to Pelosi, you'd think these meetings were more reminiscent of Germany in the early 1930s, with brownshirts and Communists clashing in the streets.

I don't think Obama has done an effective job of selling health care reform to the American people (hence the contentious town hall meetings), and I think Congress has butched the legislation.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 12, 2009 - 9:28pm.

SK in CV wrote:

My only real issue was your assertion that the insurance companies are supportive of reform. They're not, unless it is a watered down, do nothing reform that doesn't include a public option. The kind of reform will do more damage than good for all concerned including democrats and republicans politically, taxpayers, the uninsured, the under-insured and health care providers. (For profit hospitals will probably make out just fine.) Everyone except for insurance companies and big pharma.

SK: Like I said, I may well be wrong on Big Insurance (and having worked for Big Insurance in a prior life, I can well imagine that they aren't for this).

However, I'm more intrigued by the Dem's attitude about this whole situation, especially the town hall meetings. Listening to Pelosi, you'd think these meetings were more reminiscent of Germany in the early 1930s, with brownshirts and Communists clashing in the streets.

I don't think Obama has done an effective job of selling health care reform to the American people (hence the contentious town hall meetings), and I think Congress has butched the legislation.

Submitted by afx114 on August 12, 2009 - 9:51pm.

While the Dems certainly don't need any of the opposition to get it done, would it not be in the best interests of the country to get some valid input and opinions from both sides in order to move towards something that both sides can be happy with?

Unfortunately the only thing being contributed to the discourse by the opposition is yelling, screaming, Hitler, and Grandma killing. It is certainly their right to do so, but what they are contributing besides that I haven't quite figured out yet. Care to enlighten me?

It's no different than the "Code Pink" crowd. They do nothing but disrupt what should be a civilized debate about a very important issue, and in the end paint themselves as loonies to those who want to actually accomplish something. They become an embarrassment to their own team.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 12, 2009 - 9:54pm.

afx114 wrote:

It's no different than the "Code Pink" crowd. They do nothing but disrupt what should be a civilized debate about a very important issue, and in the end paint themselves as loonies to those who want to actually accomplish something.

I have no affinity for Code Pink, but they're hardly the same thing. Code Pink showed up with 4 or 5 women at a few dozen events over a 3 or 4 year period. And in most cases they were promptly escorted out.

What the opposition has contributed is fear. And it's worked quite well. Death panels that don't exist. Socialized medicine which isn't part of the plan. Rationed care. Those lies have created fear. It's hard to fight it when even the Republican who initiated the advance directive clause in the House plan is now running from it. Fear is effective.

Submitted by afx114 on August 12, 2009 - 10:08pm.

Agreed. The irony is that all this fear is coming from the supposed tough guy cowboy party. Just like the bully on the playground, as soon as they lose their power they cower in fear.

We need an updated version of FDR's quote:
"Be very afraid because all we have is fear itself."

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 12, 2009 - 10:10pm.

SK in CV wrote:
afx114 wrote:

It's no different than the "Code Pink" crowd. They do nothing but disrupt what should be a civilized debate about a very important issue, and in the end paint themselves as loonies to those who want to actually accomplish something.

I have no affinity for Code Pink, but they're hardly the same thing. Code Pink showed up with 4 or 5 women at a few dozen events over a 3 or 4 year period. And in most cases they were promptly escorted out.

What the opposition has contributed is fear. And it's worked quite well. Death panels that don't exist. Socialized medicine which isn't part of the plan. Rationed care. Those lies have created fear. It's hard to fight it when even the Republican who initiated the advance directive clause in the House plan is now running from it. Fear is effective.

Afx/SK: No disagreement on the Republicans. While conservative, I haven't supported the Republican Party since 1996. This is a rudderless ship at present, and they are blowing a golden opportunity to seize the initiative from the Dems and make a strong showing in 2010.

Instead, it's just bloviation and nonsense. SK, you're completely right about the fear based strategy being employed right now. It not only diminishes any chance of meaningful dialogue on this topic, but it further distances the elements of an already polarized and balkanized country.

As tone deaf as the Republicans have been, though, the Dems are matching them blow for blow. That Hoyer-Pelosi op/ed piece was amazing to me. Is Pelosi really that out of touch?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 12, 2009 - 10:15pm.

Dupe.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 12, 2009 - 10:42pm.

“On May 21, 2009, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), cochairman of the Bi-Partisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease and senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over health care policy, and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over health care policy, today reintroduced the Independence at Home Act, H.R. 2560. The bill will create a 3-year pilot program to bring primary care medical services to Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions in their homes. It will offer incentives for providing patients with care options that offer greater independence and quality of life while reducing costs. Pilot programs will be set up in 26 states, and the legislation has attracted bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, including Representative Chris Smith (R-N.J.), and Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Ben Cardin, (D- Md.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).” I think this is a more humane solution to some of the problems associated with elderly patients.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 12, 2009 - 10:47pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
“On May 21, 2009, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), cochairman of the Bi-Partisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease and senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over health care policy, and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over health care policy, today reintroduced the Independence at Home Act, H.R. 2560. The bill will create a 3-year pilot program to bring primary care medical services to Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions in their homes. It will offer incentives for providing patients with care options that offer greater independence and quality of life while reducing costs. Pilot programs will be set up in 26 states, and the legislation has attracted bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, including Representative Chris Smith (R-N.J.), and Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Ben Cardin, (D- Md.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).” I think this is a more humane solution to some of the problems associated with elderly patients.

More humane than what?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 12:03pm.

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

"SALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself."

"'Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,' read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun...

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 12:25pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

"SALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself."

"'Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,' read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html

What does this have to do with proposed health insurance legislation?

Submitted by sd_matt on August 13, 2009 - 1:43pm.

I skipped to the end here so if I'm repeating something then..well..you'll let me know.

Who's gonna be the people to provide the oversight for this new health care plan?

If it's the same ones that were overseeing our financial system then does it really matter what form our new gubment health system takes?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 1:44pm.

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

Ezekiel J. Emanuel

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 2:01pm.

Sec. 3111, Pg. 931 - The government will establish a Preventative and Wellness Trust fund, with initial cost of $30,800,000,000 (Billions more).

Health Benefits Advisory Committee

According to Division A, Title I, Subtitle C, Section 123 of HR 3200, a Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be established to be chaired by the Surgeon General of the United States. It will consist of 9 more individuals who are not federal employees that are appointed by the President of the United States. It will also consist of 9 members who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States. Also, up to eight more members will be appointed in even numbers by the President of the United States who are federal employees and officers. Each member of the committee will serve three year terms. The Health Benefits Advisory Committee will recommend to the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services benefit standards and periodic updates to such standards.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 2:01pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

Ezekiel J. Emanuel

What does this have to do with proposed health insurance legislation?

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 2:07pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Sec. 3111, Pg. 931 - The government will establish a Preventative and Wellness Trust fund, with initial cost of $30,800,000,000 (Billions more).

Health Benefits Advisory Committee

According to Division A, Title I, Subtitle C, Section 123 of HR 3200, a Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be established to be chaired by the Surgeon General of the United States. It will consist of 9 more individuals who are not federal employees that are appointed by the President of the United States. It will also consist of 9 members who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States. Also, up to eight more members will be appointed in even numbers by the President of the United States who are federal employees and officers. Each member of the committee will serve three year terms. The Health Benefits Advisory Committee will recommend to the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services benefit standards and periodic updates to such standards.

Which bill are you referring to with regards to the initial cost of $30.8 billion? That does not appear anywhere in HR 3200. The first year cost is $2.4 billion. The 9 year cost is $35.3 billion. or approximately 5% of what the war in Iraq has cost over a shorter period of time.

Submitted by Butleroftwo on August 13, 2009 - 2:13pm.

[quote=SK in CV
What does this have to do with proposed health insurance legislation?[/quote]

What does family planning, hospice, end of life choices, real-time determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service, raising taxes, palliative care, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’), fines, national consensus standard for measuring the performance and improvement of population health, Resident training rules, required preventative services, home visitations of families expecting children, Health Service Corps and student loans have to do with insurance?

This started out as a healthcare bill and now is an insurance bill in name only. Who knows where it will end up? BO has put us on notice to get this done ASAP and those who created the problem have no place in fixing it.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 2:24pm.

Effects of the Key Provisions of H.R. 3200
The legislation would establish a mandate to have health insurance, expand eligibility for Medicaid, and establish new health insurance exchanges through which some people could purchase subsidized coverage. The options available in
the insurance exchange would include private health insurance plans as well as a public plan that would be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The specifications would also require payments of penalties by uninsured individuals, firms that did not provide qualified health insurance, and other firms
whose employees would receive subsidized coverage through the exchanges. The plan would also provide tax credits to small employers that contribute toward the cost of health insurance for their workers. Collectively, those provisions would yield a significant increase in the number of
Americans with health insurance. By 2019, CBO and the staff of JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). In total, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would raise deficits by $1,042 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

By the end of the 10-year period, in 2019, the coverage provisions would add
$202 billion to the federal deficit, CBO and JCT estimate. That increase would be
partially offset by net cost savings of $50 billion and additional revenues of
$86 billion, resulting in a net increase in the deficit of an estimated $65 billion.
It is important to note that the figures presented here do not represent a complete
cost estimate for the coverage provisions of the legislation. They reflect
specifications provided by the committee staff rather than detailed analysis of the
legislative language. They do not include certain costs that the government would
incur to administer the proposed changes and the impact of the bill’s provisions on
other federal programs. Nevertheless, the estimates reflect the major net budgetary
effects of H.R. 3200.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc1046...

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 2:26pm.

Butleroftwo wrote:
SK in CV wrote:

What does this have to do with proposed health insurance legislation?

What does family planning, hospice, end of life choices, real-time determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service, raising taxes, palliative care, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’), fines, national consensus standard for measuring the performance and improvement of population health, Resident training rules, required preventative services, home visitations of families expecting children, Health Service Corps and student loans have to do with insurance?

This started out as a healthcare bill and now is an insurance bill in name only. Who knows where it will end up? BO has put us on notice to get this done ASAP and those who created the problem have no place in fixing it.

I asked that same question twice, in reference to two different posts, so I'm not sure which one you're reponding to. I'm presuming you're referring to the first one, the woman from Oregon, whose medicaid coverage did not include reimbursement for a drug which medical evidence showed would not significantly prolong her life. I suspect my premium coverage (not government paid, like her medicaid) might not cover a drug which costs $4,000 a month and phase III testing showed increased life expectancy from approximately 4 months to approximately 6 months, and has extraordinary side effects.

All that said, I'll ask again. What exactly does this woman's story, have to do with the proposed legislation?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 2:34pm.

Thank you for the reply Bof2, SK wants to control the discussion and does not present facts. He continues to attack and obfuscate. That is his default position.

Submitted by CBad on August 13, 2009 - 2:54pm.

Question about Big Insurance....I work for the biggest one and I can say for sure they are definitely against the bill and the idea of a public option. I get emails almost daily about it. Some are watered down and very PC. But some are very to the point about how and why they oppose it.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 2:56pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Thank you for the reply Bof2, SK wants to control the discussion and does not present facts. He continues to attack and obfuscate. That is his default position.

I have no more attempted to "control the discussion" than you have. Nor have I issued a single attack nor obfuscated any facts. Quote me where I have, and I'll be glad to retract my claim. I have only presented facts and questions. I would suggest that your comment is meant to bully those with opposing views towards silence. That won't happen. If you don't care for opposing views, don't post yours.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 3:13pm.

Keep posting. I enjoy talking to you. I am a shut in. I figure I would be the first to be loaded into the cattle car and taken to the camp.

Army National Guard Recruiting FEMA Camp Or “Internment/Resettlement” Specialists
By Editor Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Army National Guard is now recruiting individuals to fill job positions described as an internment/resettlement specialist according to job postings on Monster.Com and other employment based Internet sites such as one listed here. In other words, they are recruiting individuals to man facilities that could be used to house political dissidents, so-called terrorists and other individuals that the government doesn’t like. The term “resettlement” indicates that individuals holding this job position could also be responsible for moving people to other locations against their will. It is a documented fact that the U.S. government has numerous facilities at their disposal that could easily be used to house large numbers of people. Combine that, with this new job posting by the Army National Guard, and it seems as if the U.S. government is continuing to prepare for an eventual popular uprising.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php...

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 3:22pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Keep posting. I enjoy talking to you. I am a shut in. I figure I would be the first to be loaded into the cattle car and taken to the camp.

Army National Guard Recruiting FEMA Camp Or “Internment/Resettlement” Specialists
By Editor Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Army National Guard is now recruiting individuals to fill job positions described as an internment/resettlement specialist according to job postings on Monster.Com and other employment based Internet sites such as one listed here. In other words, they are recruiting individuals to man facilities that could be used to house political dissidents, so-called terrorists and other individuals that the government doesn’t like. The term “resettlement” indicates that individuals holding this job position could also be responsible for moving people to other locations against their will. It is a documented fact that the U.S. government has numerous facilities at their disposal that could easily be used to house large numbers of people. Combine that, with this new job posting by the Army National Guard, and it seems as if the U.S. government is continuing to prepare for an eventual popular uprising.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13417

Irreverent shut ins are likely to be their first target.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 3:28pm.

No doubt. Intemperate, irreverent and an anti- authority dissident. I sure hope the camps have disabled access or I will sue them under ADA.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 13, 2009 - 3:31pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
No doubt. Intemperate, irreverent and an anti- authority dissident. I sure hope the camps have disabled access or I will sue them under ADA.

Nevermind. Catch and release. Not worth the trouble of catching, cleaning and filetting. :)

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 13, 2009 - 3:37pm.

SK,
Aren't you troubled by the camps? The government seized the property of the Japanese with no due process and put them in camps. Do you think that it cannot happen here. Just because you may like the current president, does not undo the harm. Many people voted for Roosevelt and used the emergency created by the war. A similar emergency could be invoked to remove undesirables (fill in the blank). I cannot understand this not being troublesome to more people, including those who are or consider themselves to be free thinkers.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on August 13, 2009 - 3:46pm.

This just came out today:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/200...

"A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research."

I'm confused where the talking point came from that Canadians don't like their health care system. I lived in canada for two months in grad school, and everyone I spoke to was either satisfied with their system, or indifferent (but glad they don't have a system like the US). Average wait times to see a doctor without an appointment were a couple hours, with a few weeks to a month to see a specialist; not that different from wait times with out system.

Bottom line, given the choice of keeping their current system, or swapping with us and paying a little less taxes, Canadians for the most part would keep their system.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.