Healthcare Reform What Would You Do

Have not been around for a while so decided to glance through some comments here. Interesting that a while back I posted some thoughts about the health care bill that were soundly criticized by many of the "experts" on this site. Looks like you might now be convinced that this was poorly thought out legislation from the start. I will be celebrating when the existing proposals are defeated. Then they can go back to the drawing board and think it through this time and avoid all of the special deals made to buy the votes. I said it before and I will say it again - They were buying the votes and bought additional votes through more special concessions to attempt to gain additional support.

With respect to the question of what health care reform would do for me the answer is absolutely nothing beneficial. It would, however, have cost me a lot of extra money.

The U.S. simply needs to learn to live within its' means, no different than the rest of us. Deficit spending sometimes can be helpful but it does does have limits.

Will Scott Brown Ruin Republicans' (Secret) Plan to Pass Obamacare??

I recently read an interesting viewpoint by Lawrence O'Donnell, author, former U.S. Senate staffer, and Executive Producer of "The West Wing" posted: January 17, 2010 09:03 PM.

You can find it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence- ... 26604.html

It is truly amazing. With one election the whole perfect reform totally collapses. Staunch Democrats who sold their souls now have a preview of their fate and are now trying to distance themselves from it and even make statements that make them seem conservative. Nancy truly looks like a blow up doll who had her air let out and Harry well seems he has disappeared and all it took was one election. Now that the election polls have spoken maybe all can get to work on a on a truly bi-partisan proposal for the American people to consider.

cotech50 wrote:It is truly amazing. With one election the whole perfect reform totally collapses. Staunch Democrats who sold their souls now have a preview of their fate and are now trying to distance themselves from it and even make statements that make them seem conservative. Nancy truly looks like a blow up doll who had her air let out and Harry well seems he has disappeared and all it took was one election. Now that the election polls have spoken maybe all can get to work on a on a truly bi-partisan proposal for the American people to consider.

The bill was never perfect ... not blow yourself so much with hot air. Dems are not any less or more marketable than GOP at the moment ... especially now that they are ALL legally for sale on the free-market (and not just US market since many US corporations are international). There is no more bi-partisan after yesterday ... in about 10 years it will only be poly-corporatism.

Yesterday was the start of Ultimate Monopoly where the winner takes control of the whole board (world).

All of you who whine about too much government ain't seen nothing yet. Once the major players have settled well into their game with their collection of political game pieces, all of us will have government in every orifice including ones you never thought you had and all mortal humans will have their air let out.

DreamStalker wrote:
All of you who whine about too much government ain't seen nothing yet. Once the major players have settled well into their game with their collection of political game pieces, all of us will have government in every orifice including ones you never thought you had and all mortal humans will have their air let out.

Congratulations. You are halfway to the goal.

Now if you just figure out this last half:

1. Reduce the tremendous power of our government by holding them to the limits the Constitution puts on them.
2. Without power, the government will not be able to give favors, protections and money to businesses.
3. Without government favors, protections and money, business will have to operate in a free market.
4. In a free market, businesses have zero power except when they provide highly desirable products and services that are cost competitive and that people gladly buy.

At the root of your rantings and railings against "evil greedy corporations" is government providing them with their power. So unplug the oppressive power of our government and the corporations will become under the power of us individuals. We will "vote" them in and out of business with our dollars.

You are halfway to the goal in your thinking. Don't stop now. Go all the way to the goal.

rooster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:
All of you who whine about too much government ain't seen nothing yet. Once the major players have settled well into their game with their collection of political game pieces, all of us will have government in every orifice including ones you never thought you had and all mortal humans will have their air let out.

Congratulations. You are halfway to the goal.

Now if you just figure out this last half:

1. Reduce the tremendous power of our government by holding them to the limits the Constitution puts on them.
2. Without power, the government will not be able to give favors, protections and money to businesses.
3. Without government favors, protections and money, business will have to operate in a free market.
4. In a free market, businesses have zero power except when they provide highly desirable products and services that are cost competitive and that people gladly buy.

At the root of your rantings and railings against "evil greedy corporations" is government providing them with their power. So unplug the oppressive power of our government and the corporations will become under the power of us individuals. We will "vote" them in and out of business with our dollars.

You are halfway to the goal in your thinking. Don't stop now. Go all the way to the goal.

I think I'm more than half way in my understanding of what our future looks like. The Exxon, 3M, General Mills, Apria, AIG, Wal-Mart, CitiGroup, Pfizer, ADM, Phillip-Morris, Coca Cola, Aetna, Proctor & Gamble, .. etc., etc. "evil greedy corporations" may have always had some influence over some of the congress and other political officials, providing them with some power.

After the idiot conservative ideologues on the court bench just handed the government over to the corporate club to use as they see fit, do you really think:

1) they are going to reduce their newly given power and allow themselves to be held to the constitution? ... Once they have all of their congressional pawns, they can change the constitution to whatever they want.

2) the corporations are going to give away their power over government now that they have it? ... Even a Rooster knows better than that.

3) the corporations are not going to give themselves all of the favors they need to win Ultimate Monopoly? ... Corporations are going to operate under their own rules of the game

4) the corporations will have zero power? ... Think again, in a monopolistic environment (way different than "free-market"), they will provide the products that will enable them to win the game regardless of whether they are desirable or people will buy them. When people have no choice, they will take whatever keeps them alive, not what they desire.

If you think corporations are politically conservative or liberal, you have no idea what I'm talking about. They don't care. They only care about politics from the sense of what will provide them the best "uhhh ... competitive advantage" over the other game players.

Vote them in and out with your dollars against what, your own dollars? Yes, the corporations will use your own dollars against your own wishes much like they are doing now ... did the government favors (subsidies and bailouts) that you mention previously not come in to your thoughts?

Why yes, know I understand your line of thought ... we all are going to be poor government oppressed humans because we want to live our lives as poor government oppressed humans.

I think you are half way to the nut house in your thinking. Don't stop now. Go all the way to the house and take your "idiotlogical" friends with you, then maybe there will at least be hope for the rest of us.

And, let's see ... who do we have to thank for the idiot majority on the Supreme Court.

Supreme?? Supreme idiots and supreme enemies of the people!

Replying to an argument by restating the opponents points as questions and answering those questions using icons and terms like

and and and and and "idiotlogical" and "evil greedy corporations" and “idiot conservative ideologues” and “nut house”

is not an intellectually honest argument. In fact, it is not an argument at all.

Good day.

rooster wrote:Replying to an argument by restating the opponents points as questions and answering those questions using icons and terms like

and and and and and "idiotlogical" and "evil greedy corporations" and “idiot conservative ideologues” and “nut house”

is not an intellectually honest argument. In fact, it is not an argument at all.

Good day.

You are correct, one cannot argue questionable points that in fact, are intellectually false using any type of icons or terms.

You too have a good day ... and don't forget to take friends with you.

Y'all remember the movie Rollerball in which the world was run by corporations? Well, with that insane move from the Supreme Court we're more than halfway there. Unrestrained greed is just that Rooster, unrestrained. Without govt limits, corporations prey on us. As I and other have said earlier, Eisenhower warned us about the rise of corporate power...it is indeed dangerous. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.

The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the provisions thrown in to the Senate version are bows to the insurance industry status quo. Exactly what got us into this mess. That why the Senate version is not real reform. The House version isn't perfect either, but it's at least more progressive.

frazzled-snoozer wrote:Beyond my comments above: Here's what I would want in the healthcare bill:
1. No denials for pre-existing conditions.

This would no longer be legal under both the Senate and the House bills. However, the Senate version lets insurance providers increase premiums on those with pre-existing conditions. So while they can't deny it, they can charge more for it. That's a sellout to the insurance industry.

2. Changing the regulations for insurance co's to give them more transportability (over state lines.)

No argument there. There are areas of this country where only one company exists. Customers must be able to shop outside their area. This should have to be in conjuntion with a strong national option. Otherwise it's just increasing pool sizes for the private sector. Another potential sellout to the insurance companies.

3. I'd like to see less regulation for insurance as far as what they will cover, but more regulation to create quotas of high risk patients.

You said above that you're against letting insurance companies decide who gets care based on pre-existing conditions. I agree 100% with you. However, deregulation of what insurance companies are required to cover will add to pre-existing conditions

If I'm understanding your first and third correctly, they appear to contradict one another. Assuming I'm right, wow do you reconcile those two stands? Am I misunderstanding?

In other words, in order to be sure there are affordable plans for everyone a certain %age of their business would have to be for these high risk patients with some structure for basic coverage (like they do for high risk auto insurance)... thus spreading out the burden. With fewer regulations about what they will offer, competition would grow according to consumer demand.

Insurance companies seem to think that my body is a commodity like the futures market. It isn't. Insurance companies pit us against stockholders. Since the purpose of every company is to improve its bottom line, stockholders win that fight. The other side to the coin is not letting insurance companies drop us when we use the system.

That practice is illegal in the Senate version and I want to say the House version.

As the system is now, everybody on this forum could lose their insurance tomorrow simply because they used it. We should all be very afraid right now and insist that this provision stays in conference.

In other words, in order to be sure there are affordable plans for everyone a certain %age of their business would have to be for these high risk patients with some structure for basic coverage (like they do for high risk auto insurance)...

That's what insurance all about. It's a risk pool. For example, in California you HAVE to buy earthquake insurance, regardless of whether you live on the Hayward fault (the most dangerous fault in America) or in Idyllwild, which isn't on any fault lines are an insulated by mountains that absorb the damage to homes.

4. I'd like to see no caps on what you can put in your FSA. These accounts should be encouraged.

Again, no argument there.

5. There should be greater limitations on medical lawsuits. While the legal system is a very effective place to penalize shoddy medicine, compensation should be limited to stay within scale of the damage.

Help me understand, what's a human life worth? All phases of the medical industry kill. Sometimes it's doctor error/incompetence and sometimes it's insurance company denial of life-saving treatments. Why shouldn't I be able to sue for that?

I'd like the end result of any ideas to be that anyone who can buy his own groceries should be able to afford his own health insurance. I believe healthcare is as essential to us as food. I don't expect the government to provide my food so I'd like to not expect the government to provide my healthcare. But, for those that are in need of assistance, I think we should do a much better job of providing quality healthcare. I think a lot has improved in this regard with Medi-caid and Medicare pairing up with existing HMO's. That's the sort of thinking I want to see expanded. ...people are more motivated, more innovative, and even more efficient when we're running our own show. That's why a system where even the poorest among us has a choice of how they'll spend their healthcare dollars could be fantastic. It should be as easy to come by as auto insurance and even higher a priority on anyone's budget....I don't know about requiring people to purchase it.

Agreed. Requiring anybody to purchase is a sellout to the private sector. All it does is adds millions of potential customers to the "free market." It's no coincidence that insurance companies' stock rose the day that provision was thrown in. Investors knew that they were the big winners in the stage of the fight.

Another nifty. The last week before Christmas, Democrats managed to slip in requiring coverage for complementary and alternative medicine like massage therapy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, etc.

Doug

The biggest problem I have is that a lot of the provisions thrown in to the Senate version are bows to the insurance industry status quo. Exactly what got us into this mess. That why the Senate version is not real reform. The House version isn't perfect either, but it's at least more progressive.

frazzled-snoozer wrote:Beyond my comments above: Here's what I would want in the healthcare bill:
1. No denials for pre-existing conditions.

This would no longer be legal under both the Senate and the House bills. However, the Senate version lets insurance providers increase premiums on those with pre-existing conditions. So while they can't deny it, they can charge more for it. That's a sellout to the insurance industry.

2. Changing the regulations for insurance co's to give them more transportability (over state lines.)

No argument there. There are areas of this country where only one company exists. Customers must be able to shop outside their area. This should have to be in conjunction with a strong national public option. Otherwise it's just increasing pool sizes for the private sector. Another sellout to the insurance companies.

3. I'd like to see less regulation for insurance as far as what they will cover, but more regulation to create quotas of high risk patients.

You said above that you're against letting insurance companies decide who gets care based on pre-existing conditions. I agree 100% with you. However, deregulation of what insurance companies are required to cover will add to denials based on pre-existing conditions.

Your first and third points appear to contradict one another. How do you reconcile those two stands? Am I understanding correctly?

In other words, in order to be sure there are affordable plans for everyone a certain %age of their business would have to be for these high risk patients with some structure for basic coverage (like they do for high risk auto insurance)... thus spreading out the burden. With fewer regulations about what they will offer, competition would grow according to consumer demand.

Insurance companies seem to think that my body is a commodity like the futures market. It isn't. Insurance companies pit us against stockholders. Since the purpose of every company is to improve its bottom line, stockholders win that fight.

The other side to the coin is not letting insurance companies drop us when we use the system. That practice is illegal in the Senate version and I want to say the House version. As the system is now, everybody on this forum could lose their insurance tomorrow simply because they used it. We should all be very afraid right now and insist that this provision makes it through conference intact.

In other words, in order to be sure there are affordable plans for everyone a certain %age of their business would have to be for these high risk patients with some structure for basic coverage (like they do for high risk auto insurance)...

That's what insurance all about. It's a risk pool. For example, in California you HAVE to buy earthquake insurance, regardless of whether you live on the Hayward fault (the most dangerous fault in America) or in Idyllwild, which isn't on any fault lines and is insulated against damage by mountains--nature's shock absorbers. The purpose is to allow payments for anybody who experiences damage caused by a natural disaster.

4. I'd like to see no caps on what you can put in your FSA. These accounts should be encouraged.

Again, no argument there.

5. There should be greater limitations on medical lawsuits. While the legal system is a very effective place to penalize shoddy medicine, compensation should be limited to stay within scale of the damage.

Help me understand, what's a human life worth? All phases of the medical industry kill. Sometimes it's doctor error/incompetence and sometimes it's insurance company denial of life-saving treatments. Why shouldn't I be able to sue who I see as the guilty party?

I'd like the end result of any ideas to be that anyone who can buy his own groceries should be able to afford his own health insurance. I believe healthcare is as essential to us as food. I don't expect the government to provide my food so I'd like to not expect the government to provide my healthcare. But, for those that are in need of assistance, I think we should do a much better job of providing quality healthcare. I think a lot has improved in this regard with Medi-caid and Medicare pairing up with existing HMO's. That's the sort of thinking I want to see expanded. ...people are more motivated, more innovative, and even more efficient when we're running our own show. That's why a system where even the poorest among us has a choice of how they'll spend their healthcare dollars could be fantastic. It should be as easy to come by as auto insurance and even higher a priority on anyone's budget....I don't know about requiring people to purchase it.

Agreed on all points. In theory, requiring everybody to purchase insurance will reduce costs by increasing the pool. In reality, is a sellout to the private sector, since all it does is add millions of potential customers to the "free market." It's no coincidence that insurance companies' stock rose the day that provision was thrown in. Investors knaw that they are the big winners in the Senate version.

All that said, there's a little-known and very exciting provision thrown into the Senate bill at the last minute. It will require insurance companies to cover CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) like massage therapy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, etc. There's no defenceable reason to disallow acupuncture, especially since the FDA officially recognized the needles used as "medical devices." UHG is resisting this exact problem for me right now. I asked then if they would cover acupuncture for Plantar Faschiitis. They said yes, but ONLY if I try something else--something "conventional" Forget about the fact that it's worked for 5,000 years.

Doug

Muse-Inc wrote:Y'all remember the movie Rollerball in which the world was run by corporations? Well, with that insane move from the Supreme Court we're more than halfway there. Unrestrained greed is just that Rooster, unrestrained. Without govt limits, corporations prey on us. As I and other have said earlier, Eisenhower warned us about the rise of corporate power...it is indeed dangerous. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.

I think Wal Mart's new logo looks like the logo for the "Umbrella Corporation" in "Resident Evil".

Rollerball is an entertaining movie, but it is no substitute for studying a little history and economics and throwing in huge doses of common sense and morality.

Muse-Inc wrote: Unrestrained greed is just that Rooster, unrestrained. Without govt limits, corporations prey on us.

Muse,

Setting me up as one who advocates "no government limits on corporations" is a cheap-shot argument. I have never said that and have never even thought that.

In fact, I believe in punishment of individuals and corporations who violate the rights of other individuals. There are plenty of laws on the books to protect us from corporations who commit fraud and take other immoral and illegal actions.

I start with the basic premise that God created each of us as individuals and gave us free will. Therefore, it is immoral for any one person (or corporation or government) to try to control another person's life by force, fraud or deception. Our Constitution and government were originally designed to protect our freedom from such things.

Free will leads straight to free markets and maybe not coincidentally, free markets are the most practical way to organize our economic activities in our imperfect world.

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems ironic that you chose "Inc" as the hyphenating ending to your User ID.

We don't need health care reform before we see tort reform..........government and lawyers are out of control........

Health care should not be expected to cure everything or produce perfection, it's all about managing symptoms and diseases.

Trouble is, everyone expects cures and perfection, that in most cases is unrealistic. Then individuals sue as if money can replace expectations.

And so, to me healthcare reform is putting the cart before the horse. Reform the tort laws consistently in this country before anyone thinks about healthcare reform.