|
The smoke is getting thick and the mirrors are blinding while the important question is left undiscussed: should we all move to a beach in the Bahamas until this crap is over?
On one side is Sarah Palin writing on her Facebook page and Sen. Chuck Grassley, both using misrepresentation and FUD instead of discussing solutions to the real problems that exist in the current system.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is warning that Americans should be worried about an “end of life” provision in the House health care bill.
“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said Wednesday during a town hall in Winterset, Iowa. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
On the other is Howard Dean who wants retribution against Democrats who question the President’s idiotic mess of a health plan and don’t vote for it.
Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean fired one of the clearest warning shots at hesitant Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, insisting that if the party was unable to produce a health care bill with a public plan, there would be electoral consequences.
“I do think there will be primaries as the result of all this, if the bill doesn’t pass with a public option,” Dean said, in a phone interview with the Huffington Post.
The former Vermont governor added the caveat that he thought “cooler heads” would ultimately prevail and that a government run option for insurance coverage would be passed. But his remarks are some of the most threatening yet to be directed at Democrats from within the party.
End Of Life Counseling.
“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley (R-Iowa) said Wednesday during a town hall in Winterset, Iowa. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
Grassley is a fool.
Having this expense covered for everyone—as an option that becomes available on request— is a Good Thing. When it looks like life has closed in, people need to understand things that they may never have considered. There are a huge number of things to think through.
Family and loved ones don’t come by this by learning about it in school or in day to day life activities. Grassley is demonstrating his profound lack of consideration and thought.
Grassley knows he is wrong==he’s no fool.
So, why is he saying what he’s saying?
It is often said that our politicians aren’t that bright but mean well. The truth is just the opposite.
And yet, some people “listen” to them.
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE.
PS–I just saw a report that this “end of life” counseling “by docs” would cost 2.7 Billion Dollars. Don’t know over what time period. IE==Doc’s to be paid for what Hospitals already provide for free. See how “doc oriented competition” drives up cost?
One wonders how the heck a doc provides any meaningful service at all without going into such issues? Again==hospitals already mandated by law to do it with every admission.
Heh, heh. Yea, best system in the world.
Bobbo – no prob. In the absence of government interference, YOU can keep me on my toes. Just don’t send me any paperwork.
I find my work very satisfying though, as my bank keeps reminding me, not enriching.
Maybe I should just set up as an end of life counselor and rake in the millions.
Animby==can you imagine what would be worse?
Paperwork or educating patients regarding end of life issues? Pretty close call I would think.
I’ve only heard snipets. I think you can bill a patient every 5 years.
Don’t know if it is a short, medium, or long patient visit but I do assume the actual time spent will be pretty short if you talk without looking at the patient, not knowing their name, and keep your hand on the doorknob===like most docs.
Heh, heh. I crack myself up. I could’ve gone to med school===except I’m not smart enough and I really dislike sick people. So close!!!
I just hit some combination of keys that disappeared my pending post.
Bobbo – I tried saying: You can bill the patient every five years in Chicago even after they’ve died, as long as they continue to vote.
I think you’d be surprised how easy these conferences usually are. The patient is either healthy but knows it won;t last so is trying to make things easier for their family, or they already come to grips with their impending terminal state. So, no drama.
Besides, it’s usually a social worker or a nurse that does the actual counseling. With that being taken care of, I’m free to go in the back and make out with that cute young lab tech I hired. Her salary and birth control are billable under Obamacare.
Life will be sooooo sweet.
Its not just docs that get to charge for what other people do. My favorite is the OB/GYN who gets to charge for delivering a child. He’s actually home asleep, the ER doc and nurses deliver the kid, but the “attending physician” gets to bill and since the Hospital Staff is already getting paid, everyone is happy.
Similarly, I once got a significant bonus for work my secretary actually did. Yes, I had the idea and set up the protocol, but she did all the work. I “almost” shared the bonus with her, but I thought she might suffer from staff jealousy, so I manned up and took all the money for myself.
Gee, that was a tangent. Did I even mention I hate politics?
# 21 ECA said:
“I cant find it..
The survival rate in the USA from birth to death.”
Here it is: 100% of people, not just in the USA, survive from birth to death!
– – – – –
# 33 Greg Allen said, in part:
“Oh, we also believe that doubling the cost of health insurance every 8 to 10 years is unsustainable. Eventually, the cost of health insurnace will be more than the salary!”
My wife tells me she estimates at least one third of the women in her office work solely to pay for their families’ health insurance. After the premiums, covering the spouse and kids, the co-pays, etc., there’s not much left, but if they’re lucky their husbands have jobs to pay for clothing, groceries, rent/mortgage, vehicles, tuition, etc.
Then, in January, H.R. was in a panic scramble to switch everyone’s coverage to a different provider because the previous company was about to LITERALLY DOUBLE the premiums!
little fact check for you all –
the health bill says nothing about denying care to old folk, the passage republicans question* in fact is offering them MORE care by giving them a cheap means of writing wills and making arrangments should the worst happen
*btw and this is verifiable FACT, that section of the bill? it was added as an ammendment by a REPUBLICAN SENATOR, so go ahead republicans pls do bitch some more about how that nasty republican inspired section of the bill is obamas way of killing the nation
and the fact you have to be informed of this by me, a foreigner is shameful, you all like to bitch and moan, how about actually reading the bill and making up your own minds instead of spewing propoganda?
some enlightening reading for the “obama is trying to kill us all” crowd (not that theyll pay the least bit of attention)
and in case your wondering the republican senators who added the amendment specifically to add end of life care are susan collins and jay rockefeller – google them
Revere #78 – I think most people on here understand that the “End of Life” squads are not legislated to stop the provision of medical care but to help the terminal and aged to decide how they want things to go when their candle burns too short. We’ve always done it (well, some of us). It’s just fun to talk about in exaggerated terms.
Obama promising health care negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN so that the public will be a part of the conversation.
Obama saying he won’t be able to ELIMINATE employer coverage / private insurance immediately (due to a 10 to 20 year transition process)
>We single-payer liberals believe we can reduce costs by getting everyone insured, lowering the per-person costs.
You would have to lower per-person costs more than the amount you’ve increased the total pool, otherwise your costs have gone up. Plus the cost to government will go up even more, as you are replacing private payments with government payments.
>We also believe that taking the huge profit out of insurance means lower premiums.
Government has its own higher costs.
Many hospitals are non-profit. I don’t know why the focus is on insurance instead of health care, other than having a convenient villain.
>We also believe ending the vastly-more-expensive use of emergency rooms for primary care will save money.
The emergency room usage is a small portion of health care costs. I was surprised myself when I read this. I’ll see if I can find a link to it.
>We believe that allowing the government to negotiate the price of drugs will reduce that cost.
If the government is setting prices low, then you are killing the incentive for developing new drugs.
>We also believe that paying for outcomes rather than more and more procedures will lower the costs.
I think so, but it will also give providers an incentive to give less care.
>We believe that a “government option” will bring REAL competitiveness to the insurance companies.
A government option that isn’t run at cost isn’t real competition, the same way the Post Office has to be bailed out all the time. If the government services are free, then very few people will keep their private insurance.
The real effect is to make private insurance not viable, except for the wealthiest who will buy ‘premium’ care. Or are you going to ban that as well?
>And, yes, believe-it-or-not, we believe that tort reform could lower the costs by a couple of percent.
Haven’t seen that in any plans so far. I think it could have a larger effect. Here your point about outcomes comes into play. Many extra procedures are done or at least recommended just in case. For the vast majority of people, they are not needed.
# whatever, bobbo,
A couple of small points about comparing a government service to a private sector service. You can’t really make a price comparison because the government service is supported by your tax dollars. So, a post isn’t really 44 (it went up a cent while you weren’t watching 😉 cents, it’s 44 cents plus what ever part of your taxes helped pay for the service. Making this calculation is a little vague because 50 percent of us don’t pay federal tax meaning the rest of us are actually paying twice what we would pay if everyone were paying. Then how do you figure the support of the service; do you only count any department that wouldn’t exist if not for the USPO? Do you add in any other support service done by other departments that assist the service (ie GAO audits, etc)?
Second, you probably want to compare the same kind of delivery. It cost 4.95 to guarantee (priority mail) that a one ounce letter sent Friday gets to it’s destination using the USPO. Fed Ex charges 19.63. As you know Fed Ex doesn’t offer regular mail, that’s a government monopoly.
A third point I would make is that once a price is set arbitrarily (44 cents) then I believe by definition it’s not open to competition making a price comparison illogical. In other words that price doesn’t really reflect what it costs you for the service.
I think that it will be the same with healthcare. There will only be the price you pay and the cost will be hidden from you. Not through any conspiracy, but because it’s the nature of government programs. I think that, just like every other government service ever created, it will cost way more than we will know.
#79 &81 revere
Nice that you bothered to look it up but the senate version that amendment has been pulled as of yesterday but that isn’t what we are talking about anyway. It is HB3200 and the section wasn’t added as an amendment and it is still there. Try reading it before interjecting. If you find it then point out to me where I’m wrong.
# 84 MikeN – You WON’T see anything about tort reform during this debate. Dear Barry has ruled it out in an address to the AMA. It’s the one thing that could be done quickly and simply but would, unfortunately, adversely affect the income of the liberal bar.
#85–gooddebate==thanks. Isn’t it more true than false that the USPO pays its own way as a freestanding entity? The 44cents is not arbitrary but what it costs to break even even after being forced to carry all the crap/bulk/congressional mail they would not do if truly set on a “business model?”
Anyway, the “details” are not THAT important. When one judges X “better than Y, its good to have the debate we might on the issue.
“Most Mail” is not handled by the private carriers and they do charge quite a premium for it. Many analytical factors there line up with the healthcare analysis.
What is kinda funny is that “Death Panels” actually would be a very good thing. Shine light on the issues with the truth. The Oregon Model.
#89–evil==repetition does not add a thing.
bobbo,
ditto. or answer the questions.
It may not be a total solution but I still maintain an assigned risk insurance program would be superior. If you want to be the next Blue Cross fine; go out and aggressively pursue IBM as your group, But, you gotta put your name in the assigned risk pool, too, and the next unemployed hobo that wants health insurance gets in. The USGov pays a set premium and regulatory authorities make sure you aren’t skimping. Rates would be subject to review by a “public utilities” commission – after all, if you want universal care it does become a utility, sort of. Combine that with tort reform and limiting care for foreign nationals. You don’t turn them away: everyone is entitled to emergency care. But, as soon as they are stable, off they go back to Baklava or whatever pastry they come from.
It’s not a complete solution but it would go a very long way.
#92 – Animby
And so it becomes a meat grinder. In ya go, out ya go.
And out goes innovation and the ability to choose better care.
I work hard, pay a premium and expect healthcare better than down at the clinic. While it would suck to have to be at the clinic, at least it’s available as well as the ER for anyone and everyone – even today. Can’t say the same for most of the world.
And before anyone says I am an elitist that doesn’t deserve my choice, I work damned hard. There were days when the clinic was my only choice. And I choose to work for something better. No handouts here.
Bobbo, both the Post Office and Amtrak every so often go to Congress to ask for more money, and the commissioners usually say if they dont get it they will have to shut down the following routes/post offices.
#92–Animby==anything to change the system, keep working out the bumps, is ok with me. I think your recognition of a utility is on point==that point being that “insurance” should have nothing to do with the way most people get their utility services. Efficiencies/ability to better serve will come when the ACTUAL DELIVERY SYSTEM is changed. I’m thinking nurses doing more, more outreach, more walk in clinics. Actual delivery of needed service rather than focusing on payment mechanisms.
#93–Evil==I also agree that we just ought to get real and admit to various levels/tiers of service. Rich people should always get better service than poor. I just don’t think poor people/working poor/newly unemployed should get ZERO care. There are lots of other approaches that will actually deliver healthcare===every other fricken country calling itself civilized does it for half our cost. Surely our greatest minds can take the best from their systems to some beneficial effect?
#94–Mike==so what? Add up all the revenue of the USPO and they deliver an admirable service FAR CHEAPER than the for profit counterparts. “PROFIT” is a waste of money in an efficient utility.
#95
“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. They are. It’s always the Post Office that has the problems.”
http://breitbart.tv/obama-its-the-post-office-thats-always-having-problems/
Would you like to try again and explain about the efficiency of the PO?
bobbo – I just don’t think poor people/working poor/newly unemployed should get ZERO care.
Name one U.S. citizen with ZERO healthcare. City and state too so I can list all healthcare providers they can go to and their benefits. It won’t be the Taj Mahal or service with a smile (it’s federal, state and local governments running the show after all), but their needs will be taken care of.
#96–Thomas==”Would you like to try again and explain about the efficiency of the PO?” /// .44 cents per letter.
#97–Evil==”Name one U.S. citizen with ZERO healthcare.” /// Well, there was the 60 min type report on the lady who needed a liver transplant, her Ins Co would not approve it, she rallied public/congressional support who got involved, and the Ins Co approved the transplant 2-3 days before she died.
Are you substituting Hospital Emergency Rooms limited to EMERGENCY CARE, with “healthcare?” Not the same thing at all.
Further, I have chronic care type coverage but not what I actually need: Dental. But, who needs teeth?
#98–Evil==don’t be redundant, just post as “your typical Repuglican.” The answer to bad government is not more Repuglicans in office, or Dems acting like “goverment is the problem Repuglicans, it is TRANSPARENCY.
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE.
#99
Swing and a miss. Clearly you are throwing a blind eye to the entire equation.
US Postal Service Restructuring Urgently Needed to Achieve Financial Viability
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09958t.pdf
The PO is expected to have a $7 billion loss this year and expected to have about $10 billion in debt. FedEx could take letters for $.44 if they had someone covering their $7 billion dollar loss.
Btw, there is a telling statement in this report:
http://gao.gov/new.items/d09937sp.pdf
” USPS has not been able to cut costs fast enough to offset the
accelerated decline in mail volume and revenue—particularly costs related to its
workforce, retail and processing networks, and delivery services”
This is classic evidence of government inefficiency. A government system cannot react to changing market conditions nearly as quickly as private enterprise. Thus, they languish for years in losses until something is done eventually. There could not be a better example of why centrally managed systems are more inefficient than market systems.