|
|
President Obama's promised healthcare reform is now in the house. Nothing is definite yet, the detail to be hammered out. What components would you like to see included in the legislation? Are you in favor of a single payer system? Why or why not?
|
Posts:
931
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(3712 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 22, 2009 2:09 PM
|
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), reaffirmed on Sunday that he will support a Republican filibuster of any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance option.
Appearing on the "Meet the Press," the Connecticut independent said that neither he, nor anybody else believed the current version of legislation will get the 60 votes needed to stop debate in the Senate.
"I voted last night as 59 others did to go ahead with the debate because I want us to begin not only debating health care reform but doing something about health care reform," Lieberman said. "But I don't think anybody feels this bill, as Senator Reid put it down -- though he made a lot of progress blending bills together -- I don't think anybody thinks this bill will pass."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/lieberman-i-dont-think-an_n_366800.html
Do you agree with Lieberman? Is there any chance that this bill will get enough backing to go to a vote?
|
|
|
Posts:
13,082
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(3711 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 3:22 PM
|
|
Shouldn't we be pushing this reform along? You know the longer the Republicans and some Democrats drag, the longer leverages they have over other things such as wars and other affairs.
|
|
|
Posts:
14
Registered:
9/20/09
|
|
(3710 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 11:14 AM
|
>>>>>Aka the federal workers insurance. Aka the public exchange. The exchange IS the same insurance program congress uses. The public option is a BARE BONES plan which is only there to provide a benchmark.
Bare bones makes sense. Sounds like a single payer is sneaking up on us. It would be the business of the single payer to offer an effective and hopefully lifesaving treatment. So both Mr. Lawnmower man and Mr. Fortune 500 would get the latest and greatest treatment equally- bare bones. But it is not the business of the single payer to give you luxury treatment in the hospital (unless it's directly tied to the treatment itself). So if you want a deluxe private room or other thing like that then you would pay yourself or if you have extra insurance from your company that would. The single payer remains the core engine of the treatment.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,011
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(3709 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 10:16 AM
|
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and
> Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
> (D-Mont.) have taken a long stride toward locking
> down the support of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
>
> The three senators announced an agreement Friday on
> an amendment that would allow many more people who
> get health insurance at work to opt out and instead
> purchase coverage on the new health insurance
> exchanges the bill would create.
>
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68897
> -sen-wyden-wins-big-healthcare-concession
>
> If you had the option to "exchange" your current
> healthcare from work with something better, would you
> do it?
Are these guys aware of the unemployment rate, or are they blindfolded millionaires operating in a vacuum?
The biggest problem that needed solving is delivering health care to the working poor, and far as I can tell, this bill won't help that cause. Neither will it help the people who've lost their jobs and can't afford the outrageous premiums offered through COBRA.
|
|
|
Posts:
364
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(3708 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 8:29 AM
|
> Rujoking,
>
> I said:
> >> 1. Expand Medicaid
> >> 2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
> >> 3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
> >> 4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance
> system
> >> used by congress.
> >>
> >> Pay attention.
>
> Aka the federal workers insurance. Aka the public
> exchange. The exchange IS the same insurance program
> congress uses. The public option is a BARE BONES plan
> which is only there to provide a benchmark.
>
> Pay attention.
And my point is that members of Congress would never allow themselves to be covered by such a shitty plan, yet they promote it like it's going to save the country. If the plan that Congress enjoys is good enough for them it should be good enough for all. Conversely, if the "public option" is good enough for the American population it should be good enough for Congress. They should put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Posts:
931
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(3707 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 8:25 AM
|
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have taken a long stride toward locking down the support of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
The three senators announced an agreement Friday on an amendment that would allow many more people who get health insurance at work to opt out and instead purchase coverage on the new health insurance exchanges the bill would create.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68897-sen-wyden-wins-big-healthcare-concession
If you had the option to "exchange" your current healthcare from work with something better, would you do it?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,299
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(3706 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 12:42 AM
|
Both.
The senate bill actually said it was giving everyone the same federal workers insurance system. The house bill just did it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,888
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(3705 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 12:37 AM
|
JaredP,
Senate or House Bill?
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,299
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(3704 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 12:20 AM
|
Rujoking,
I said:
>> 1. Expand Medicaid
>> 2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
>> 3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
>> 4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance system
>> used by congress.
>>
>> Pay attention.
Aka the federal workers insurance. Aka the public exchange. The exchange IS the same insurance program congress uses. The public option is a BARE BONES plan which is only there to provide a benchmark.
Pay attention.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,888
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(3703 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 11:12 PM
|
prettwitt,
The "bill" that remains to be seen is likely to be a whopper of conservative pork (although its likely to be portrayed as just the opposite). If you have the opportunity, I urge you to resist it, although I have full faith that the conservatives (i.e.; the neo-Nazi party of America) will have beat you to the punch in full force beforehand. They're dependable that way.
Cheers!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(3702 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 10:53 PM
|
> prettywitty,
>
> Again, I LOVE that name!
Well thanks! You've got a stellar one.
> Sorry, the only concern I would have if I were
> Obama, is that my name would be forever attached to a
> SIGNATURE bill that was not of my liking.
Is this in response to my post about the use of "Obamacare?" It's so very teabaggeresque.
>
> This "calculus" is not even hard, even for a 7th
> grade algebra student like me. Minimal healthcare
> (the word "minimal" MIGHT be the rub) has to be ROCK
> SOLID wrapped up and delivered prior to the midterms.
> About THAT, there can NOT be any equivocation.
I think there will be a bill before that, though what kind of bill remains to be seen.
>
> Absent that, WOW!; life is fun these days!
>
> DaN
Always, DaN!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,888
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(3701 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 9:52 PM
|
prettywitty,
Again, I LOVE that name!
Sorry, the only concern I would have if I were Obama, is that my name would be forever attached to a SIGNATURE bill that was not of my liking.
This "calculus" is not even hard, even for a 7th grade algebra student like me. Minimal healthcare (the word "minimal" MIGHT be the rub) has to be ROCK SOLID wrapped up and delivered prior to the midterms. About THAT, there can NOT be any equivocation.
Absent that, WOW!; life is fun these days!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,985
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(3700 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 7:44 PM
|
> > > I'm also waiting for some opinions on whether
> > people believe that Mrs. Obama will now forego
> > mammograms until her 50th birthday. Probably
> around
> > the same time as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi
> agree to
> > sign themselves up for the same government
> health
> > insurance plan that they want to force on
> millions of
> > Americans.
> >
> > The original insurance plans for both the house
> and
> > senate could be boiled down to four points:
> >
> > 1. Expand Medicaid
> > 2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
> > 3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
> > 4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance
> system
> > used by congress.
> >
> > Pay attention.
> >
>
> This is from the web site of Congressman John Fleming
> from Louisiana who is sponsoring a bill proposing the
> automatic enrollment of all members of Congress into
> the vaunted public option:
>
> House Resolution 615
>
> ...I have offered a resolution that will offer
> members of Congress an opportunity to put their money
> where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who
> vote for legislation creating a government-run health
> care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in
> the same public plan.
>
> [b]Under the current draft of the Democrat
> healthcare legislation, members of Congress are
> curiously exempt from the government-run health care
> option, keeping their existing health plans and
> services on Capitol Hill. If Members of
> Congress believe so strongly that government-run
> health care is the best solution for hard working
> American families, I think it only fitting that
> Americans see them lead the way. Public servants
> should always be accountable and responsible for what
> they are advocating.
>
> Perhaps it was your attention that lapsed.
>
Or Fleming's. All members of Congress already can be covered by public health insurance, and most of them already are. The fact that he makes a proposal of something doesn't mean it doesn't already exist.
>
> > Nor do I see why ANYBODY should obey a
> guideline
> > almost universally rejected by the medical
> community.
>
I don't think it's almost universally rejected. I was listening to some doctors today who agree with the new guidelines, that many women don't need the annual testing, that the tests generate many false positives which do lots of harm (in the way of requiring additional tests, including invasive ones like biopsies) and really do no good whatever... but they point out that in the end, it's only a guideline.
The actual decision is between a specific doctor and specific patient, or should be, and should be based upon the patient's personal and family history, not some arbitrary guidelines that were thought up by people who never saw this specific patient.
> They shouldn't, but do you honestly think Obamacare
> will pay for a procedure that is not recommended by a
> government-sponsored panel of "experts?"
The procedure will still be covered. It's a matter of the frequency that it will be paid for for patients who have no history the illness. Medicare already limits that. There are people who developed a cancer from nothing to lethality in under 6 months. That isn't particularly rare. Nobody is saying that these tests should be given every 6 months.
> A panel, BTW, that didn't include any oncologists.
This, I didn't know. There should have been one. But then, for this question, they aren't talking about what should be done in treating patients with cancer. This is about treating all women, but especially those who don't have cancer.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(3699 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 10:20 AM
|
> So if
> Obamacare becomes the law of the land
Anyone who uses the fictional term "Obamacare" should be either ridiculed or ignored...but certainly not taken seriously.
|
|
|
Posts:
364
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(3698 of 3742)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 10:10 AM
|
> > I'm also waiting for some opinions on whether
> people believe that Mrs. Obama will now forego
> mammograms until her 50th birthday. Probably around
> the same time as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi agree to
> sign themselves up for the same government health
> insurance plan that they want to force on millions of
> Americans.
>
> The original insurance plans for both the house and
> senate could be boiled down to four points:
>
> 1. Expand Medicaid
> 2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
> 3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
> 4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance system
> used by congress.
>
> Pay attention.
>
This is from the web site of Congressman John Fleming from Louisiana who is sponsoring a bill proposing the automatic enrollment of all members of Congress into the vaunted public option:
House Resolution 615
...I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
[b]Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating.
Perhaps it was your attention that lapsed.
> Nor do I see why ANYBODY should obey a guideline
> almost universally rejected by the medical community.
They shouldn't, but do you honestly think Obamacare will pay for a procedure that is not recommended by a government-sponsored panel of "experts?" A panel, BTW, that didn't include any oncologists. So if Obamacare becomes the law of the land, those women who can't afford to pay for the procedure will be shit out of luck (in other words, the people who are supposed to be most protected by Obamacare will be outside looking in.) Don't worry, Mrs. Obama will still be able to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
