Obama may drop Govt. Health Care

[sadaist]

W.H. backs away from public option

Carrie Budoff Brown Carrie Budoff Brown – Sun Aug 16, 3 : 02 pm ET

President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they’re prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that’s what’s needed to strike a compromise on Obama’s top legislative priority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was “not the essential element” of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was “just one sliver” of the debate.

He even chided Democratic supporters and Republican critics for becoming “so fixated on this that they forget everything else” — a dig at some liberals in his own party who have made the public option the main rallying cry of the health reform debate.

At the same time, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of six senators involved in bipartisan Finance Committee negotiations, all but declared the public option dead in the Senate.

“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Conrad, who has pushed an alternative proposal to create a network of consumer cooperatives, on Fox News Sunday. “There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”

A White House aide said in an e-mailed statement Sunday afternoon that the president is not backing away from the public plan.

"Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. “The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

But taken together, the remarks from Obama, Sebelius and Conrad suggest the White House is preparing supporters for a health care compromise that may well exclude the government option — which could help Obama win enough votes for a sweeping overhaul but touch off a nasty battle inside his own party between liberals and more moderate members who have resisted a bigger government role in health care.

It was only in June that Obama said in a letter to Senate Democrats that “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

A month ago, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that “any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.”

But in the face of hardening opposition to the idea — even inside his own party — Obama appears ready to retrench. Obama and his aides continue to emphasize having some competitor to private insurers, perhaps nonprofit insurance cooperatives, but they are using stronger language to downplay the importance that it be a government plan.

“What's important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said on CNN’s State of the Union. “And I'm convinced at the end of the day, the plan will have both of those. But that is not the essential element."

The reaction in the liberal blogosphere and beyond was swift and negative Sunday.

“Ultimately, if the president decides he’s going to go with a reform effort that doesn’t include a public option, what he will have done is spent a ton of political capital, riled up an incredibly angry right-wing base that’s been told this is a plot to kill Grandma, and he will have achieved something that doesn’t change health care very much and that doesn’t save us very much money and won’t do much for the American people,” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said on NBC’s "Meet the Press." "It’s not a very good thing to spend a lot of political capital on."

One diarist on the Daily Kos said the “public option is in the ICU. ... When you call something that once was the central tenet of reform is now a ‘sliver,’ it is very difficult to argue it is not being de-emphasized.” Another diarist wrote this headline: “Told you so: Public Option, Meet Underside of Bus.”

“It would be very, very difficult without the public option,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said on whether she could support a bill that dropped the public option. She spoke on CNN's State of the Union.

Liberals say a health care bill without a public option would fail to actually reform the system. They view the public option as the best way to hold insurance companies accountable and provide affordable coverage, and they say nonprofit cooperatives are an unproven model.

“Health Care for America Now believes that all of the elements that Secretary Sebelius spoke in favor of – a public option, insurance reform, making health care affordable to all – are essential to effective reform,” said Richard Kirsch, campaign manager of Health Care for American Now, a liberal organization pushing the government option. “There is no ‘the’ essential element – all are key to health reform that will work.”

Sebelius, following Obama’s lead Saturday in Colorado, sought to shift the focus of the debate from the public option to more popular reforms such as prohibiting insurers from denying or dropping coverage because of a preexisting condition. It’s a subtle, but potentially telling, window into the White House’s latest strategy on reframing the terms of a legislative victory.

“Those are really essential parts of the program, along with choice and competition, which I think we'll have at the end of the day,” Sebelius said.

At the Saturday town hall meeting in Colorado, Obama defended the rationale for establishing a public plan, but he also raised eyebrows for suggesting the final package may not include one.

“All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” he said. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.”

On CBS's Face the Nation, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the government option had to be included in the final bill. He repeated the standard White House line that the president wants to "inject some choice competition into the private insurance market."

But then, he appeared to hedge.

"The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done through a public option," Gibbs said.

"Is that a hedge?" asked host Harry Smith, referring to Gibbs's use of "thus far."

"No, no, no. What I am saying is the bottom line for the president is that we ought to have choice and competition in the insurance market," Gibbs responded.

W.H. backs away from public option - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090816/pl_politico/26158)

[sadaist]

“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Sen. Conrad (D-N.D.)


Wow, even Democrat senators won't vote for Obama's plan. Must be racism.

[Blackflag]

That's really surprising. I guess it's just the status quo then - I wonder how they'll spin this as groundbreaking legislation?

[Big Train]

If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

Who would you blame for it?

[jhale667]

If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

Who would you blame for it?

There's plenty of blame to go around...

The dems for backing down?

Palin and Grassley for lying through their teeth?

:rolleyes:

[sadaist]

If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

Who would you blame for it?

Since they can't pin it on George Bush this time, I'm sure they'll go to their standby...racist, redneck, teabagging, birther Republicans.

[sadaist]

The dems for backing down?

:rolleyes:


Is it really backing down if they open their eyes and see that people don't want this? Remember, they are not in public office to implement plans they want. They are there to implement plans the people want.

[jhale667]

Is it really backing down if they open their eyes and see that people don't want this? Remember, they are not in public office to implement plans they want. They are there to implement plans the people want.

Do you really think it's a case of them "opening their eyes"? Doubt it. Remember, they're also in office to do what's BEST for the country. And with as much information as is out there, do you really think the vast majority knows what they want??

[WACF]

It's things like this that make it a bit hard to understand....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Being from a province that was mainly run on socialistic ideas for many decades...it was proven many times that government and business can not fairly compete.

I do not understand really....how insurance companies can provide a service against a government sudsidized service.

Insurance companies are not there for your good...they are there to make a profit first and foremost.

I also do not understand wholly how the tax payor will not be paying into this.

In the end...your tax dollars...one way or another will be used...and there would be no need for private insurance...other than for perhaps dental, eye, chiro, prescription type of benefits.

What ever you do...it needs to be debated and people need to be informed...then...and only then bills put forward.

Health care started here in my province...and from what the older people remember...it was quite tumultuous...in the end...Canada Federally adopted our provincial plan.

You need that debate...not a bunch of screamers and poor spelling on signs to make a point.


In the end....if the government can see to the well being and health of it's countrymen & women...what good is it?

[FORD]

If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

Who would you blame for it?

Most of the blame would go to the false "democrats" like Max Bluecross and Kunt Co-op Conrad.

Obama himself has said that he would not sign a bill without a true public option. If they send such a piece of shit to his desk, I hope he vetoes it, and tells them to get it right.

However, the minute Obama signs a shitty bill, then he takes ownership of the failure. And I would never forgive him for doing so. :(

[WACF]

In the end....if the government can see to the well being and health of it's countrymen & women...what good is it?


Well...that came out wrong.

What I meant was...In the end...if the government can NOT see to the well being and health of it's countrymen & women...what good is it?

[FORD]

It's right in the preamble of the Constitution....

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The "general Welfare" part is obvious enough, but I'd argue that it speaks to the defense, Justice, and tranquility parts as well. It only makes sense that you defend against illness as you would against any other enemy. There's no "justice" when millions can't even see a doctor, and anybody who's seen a video of the teabaggers can tell there's no tranquility up in here.

[ZahZoo]

Is it really backing down if they open their eyes and see that people don't want this? Remember, they are not in public office to implement plans they want. They are there to implement plans the people want.

I don't think it's so uch that "the people" don't want it... I think it's more the insurance industry can't allow it and are pulling out all the stops to kill it.

[jhale667]

I love how this week's Repuke/Insurance agency lie/tactic is to claim Healthcare reform is now somehow Unconstitutional (I'll try to find the link my asshat birther co-worker posted later) - so I guess that means we have to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid now...:rolleyes:

[Big Train]

WACF curious to get your thoughts on this...since everyone cites Canada as a wonderful example of socialized medicine, why are they advocating essentially a Republican position?

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 2 days ago

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

[WACF]

Big Train.

I live in Saskatoon so this was big on the local news.

The news coverage showed more of both sides of the debate.

I would not claim our system is the best...but it better than none.

The biggest thing to look at with Oulette's thoughts are this...

Melding private business to provide service's that would be payed by the government.

There is nothing wrong with that at all...in fact we need more of it.

For example...if you need bloodwork or in some cases X-rays...you can go to a private clinic...show your health card...and you pay nothing.

The results go to your doctor and you discuss whatever the findings are.

In Alberta a few years back...they had a backlog of knee surgeries or something...so...they hired a few private doctors and got caught up...all payed by the government once again...no insurance company...no bill.

The government regualtes the fees charged per procedure and pays the bill.

I read something in the paper today...if I find it online I'll post it.

[WACF]

Here we go...today's story on the conference.

These kinds of things are important to discuss...especially for the U.S.

I do think...with the right amount of debate...you can come up with a superior system.


Doctor delegates debate merits of European-style health care (http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/todays-paper/Doctor+delegates+debate+merits+European+style+heal th+care/1900690/story.html)

Doctor delegates debate merits of European-style health care
By Jeanette Stewart, The StarPhoenixAugust 17, 2009

A group of Canadian doctors is calling for homegrown solutions in the face of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) president's continued advocacy for a European-style, public-private health-care system.

Outgoing CMA president Dr. Robert Ouellet hosted an information session on his five-country study of European health care Sunday afternoon as part of the association's annual convention being held in Saskatoon.

The CMA will work toward creating a "blueprint for transformation" at the conference in order to determine its direction for the next year.

Ouellet wants to see "competition and contracting of services," with services delivered by the private sector and paid for by the state on a payment per patient served basis. His conclusions are based on the findings of a three-week research trip to the U.K., Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.

Though Ouellet's presentation was closed to the media, an outline of his main presentation points was provided to The StarPhoenix.

He states all of the countries he visited use "incentives and competition" to increase their productivity and feature a public-private mix of care.

Ouellet said aside from a group of doctors who want to keep the "status quo," CMA members support the new ideas.

"We have done polls with our members. It's widely supported," Ouellet said in an interview following the presentation.

But doctors who oppose a greater private role in health care say that overall there is a need for more information. The debate is being clouded by "code words" instead of practical discussion, say advocates for the current system.

"There's a vagueness to what's being proposed that's particularly worrisome," said Dr. Robert Wollard, vice-chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare (CDM). Approximately 2,000 doctors belong to the organization, which was formed in 2006 to advocate for public health care. The group is actively working to advocate for medicare throughout the four-day conference.

"What they're talking about is having health-care institutions competing with hospitals competing with private clinics and private hospitals for money and patients," said Dr. Danielle Martin, chair of CDM.

According to the CDM, the British Medical Association has found huge problems with competition in its health-care system. "We need to learn from that experience," Martin said.

"What the doctors of the U.K. have been saying is that introducing competition has in fact been bad for patients because it's undermined the public system and it's undermined collaboration," she said.

Ouellet states the U.K. is successful in addressing wait times, correlating their success with "activity-based" funding. Based on his findings, this funding method would see hospitals and clinics paid per patient treated.

"The patient, instead of being an expense, becomes a revenue. There is an incentive to be more efficient," Ouellet said.

Martin calls this conclusion "a bit of a stretch," and attributes the success in wait-time reduction in the U.K. to a huge injection of money made recently by the government.

The group also charges that Ouellet's conclusions won't work in the Canadian context. Canada has 50 per cent fewer doctors and a more widely distributed population than European countries. In Canada, allowing doctors to move out of the public stream to work in the private system would only worsen wait times, Martin said.

Ouellet acknowledged the challenge the shortage of physicians creates in his presentation.

The CMA has 70,000 members. Members of the organization will continue to debate Ouellet's proposals for change during the course of its meeting in Saskatoon.

jstewart@sp.canwest.com

&#169; Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

[sadaist]

Remember, they're also in office to do what's BEST for the country. And with as much information as is out there, do you really think the vast majority knows what they want??

Mmmm, I don't see it that way. The way I view the Constitution and America is the people get to decide what they feel is best for themselves...with little government interference. We basically hire representatives to make good on our wishes for the direction of the country. The government is not in place to see to all the needs of all people. Or to limit those who may end up having too much in their view.

At the core, I do believe that the vast majority knows what they want. But once politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, and the media get their hands on a subject it can become quite hard for the typical person to understand. Heck, even our congressmen can't understand a bill they write without a team of lawyers and assistants translating it.

Misunderstanding/misinformation causes fear. Sure some may be unfounded, but that's what happens when you have a 1,000+ page bill filled with legal speak and try to slam it through. People don't truly understand what it is about and what they will either be gaining or losing. The real problem is sometimes our law makers do this purposely to get things passed that otherwise wouldn't stand a chance.

[Nitro Express]

Since they can't pin it on George Bush this time, I'm sure they'll go to their standby...racist, redneck, teabagging, birther Republicans.

Why are they quitting so soon? If they can't shove it up our ass hard, they don't do it at all. Do they even know the details? How about doing it in a trial area like Washington DC to see if it works. No. They just want to be granted the power and then worry about details later. When anyone is trying to get you to hurry up and sign the dotted line, it's time to go, SCAM!

[Big Train]

Big Train.

I live in Saskatoon so this was big on the local news.

The news coverage showed more of both sides of the debate.

I would not claim our system is the best...but it better than none.

The biggest thing to look at with Oulette's thoughts are this...

Melding private business to provide service's that would be payed by the government.

There is nothing wrong with that at all...in fact we need more of it.

For example...if you need bloodwork or in some cases X-rays...you can go to a private clinic...show your health card...and you pay nothing.

The results go to your doctor and you discuss whatever the findings are.

In Alberta a few years back...they had a backlog of knee surgeries or something...so...they hired a few private doctors and got caught up...all payed by the government once again...no insurance company...no bill.

The government regualtes the fees charged per procedure and pays the bill.

I read something in the paper today...if I find it online I'll post it.

So in essence, what we have (a blend of public/private) isn't so far off the mark as is. Single payer, what a lot of people here are railing about, would lead to the kind of issues Canada is currently experiencing if not worse (if I can speak poorly about our ability to run things at times).

[Terry]

One way or another, people are going to pay for their health care.

My own limited observations of services rendered for dollars spent, even restricted to my own plans over the years, are such that every year my premiums go up and in exchange my healthcare provider offers less in the way of services. AND I take no medication and haven't used ANY hospital services for over a decade. All I've used is the dental part of my health care package.

So why should I pay more money every year for less in the way of services? THIS is the status quo.

You want to talk about a scam, let's talk about how the insurance companies used their lobby over the last two decades to ensure passage of legislation that makes it virtually impossible to either drive a car or get treated without insurance.

[WACF]

So in essence, what we have (a blend of public/private) isn't so far off the mark as is. Single payer, what a lot of people here are railing about, would lead to the kind of issues Canada is currently experiencing if not worse (if I can speak poorly about our ability to run things at times).

I think it is a matter of finding balance.

What we do with the private Blood work clinics and X-Ray clinics is working very well.

The thing is the fees need to be regulated federally.

I do not think for profit hospitals are the answer.

I also think insurance companies should not have the power to raise rates or cut what is covered in the name of profits.

[Seshmeister]

Ouellet states the U.K. is successful in addressing wait times, correlating their success with "activity-based" funding. Based on his findings, this funding method would see hospitals and clinics paid per patient treated.

"The patient, instead of being an expense, becomes a revenue. There is an incentive to be more efficient," Ouellet said.



Whoever this guy is I don't think 3 weeks is enough time to really get to grips with something like that. It's really difficult and complex.

You can end up with unforeseen results.

For example in simple terms say you want to get reduce waiting times for patients getting a heart bypass operation. You might think it would be easy to just say to hospitals "Noone is to wait more than 3 months, if they do then we only pay you half for the op."

What if the patient gets the flu during that 3 months? What if they go on vacation for a month? How much notice should the patient get of their op day to arrange leave from work? What if you get an infection in your ICU, should clinicians be pushed to keep doing operations? What if you have one person who is routine but has been waiting for 10 weeks and you have another who is more urgent but has only been waiting for a week. Who do you do first?

Suddenly you end up with a bunch of administrators to work out the answers to all of the above and managers pressuring clinical decisions when all you wanted to do was get people treated quicker.

[Nickdfresh]

If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

Who would you blame for it?

I blame things like the idiotic title of this thread that completely mischaracterize things (deliberately) while showing a profound complete misunderstanding of what the issue was really about...

The "Gov't Health Care" was a very limited option to be available only to people who met certain criteria and who could genuinely not afford health insurance. It would have forced competition and lowered the rates of insurance, but thanks to the lobbyists in the insurance companies, and their legions of tea-baggers largely protesting against their own interests, it looks like its over - at least for now...

[FORD]

Dear President Obama: A Modest Medicare Proposal
By Thom Hartmann
Created Aug 17 2009 - 9: 03am

Dear President Obama,

I understand you're thinking of dumping your "public option" because of all the demagoguery by Sarah Palin and Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich and their crowd on right-wing radio and Fox. Fine. Good idea, in fact.

Instead, let's make it simple. Please let us buy into Medicare.

It would be so easy. You don't have to reinvent the wheel with this so-called "public option" that's a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won't - just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy you're so comfortable with.

Just pass a simple bill - it could probably be just a few lines, like when Medicare was expanded to include disabled people - that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.

So it's revenue neutral!

To make it available to people of low income, raise the rates slightly for all currently non-eligible people (like me - under 65) to cover the cost of below-200&#37;-of-poverty people. Revenue neutral again.

Most of us will do damn near anything to get out from under the thumbs of the multi-millionaire CEOs who are running our current insurance programs. Sign me up!

This lets you blow up all the rumors about death panels and grandma and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. Those who scorn it can go with Blue Cross. Those who like it can buy into it. Simplicity itself.

Of course, we'd like a few fixes, like letting Medicare negotiate drug prices and filling some of the holes Republicans and AARP and the big insurance lobbyists have drilled into Medicare so people have to buy "supplemental" insurance, but that can wait for the second round. Let's get this done first.

Simple stuff. Medicare for anybody who wants it. Private health insurance for those who don't. Easy message. Even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can understand it. Sarah Palin can buy into it, or ignore it. No death panels, no granny plugs, nothing. Just a few sentences.

Replace the "you must be disabled or 65" with "here's what it'll cost if you want to buy in, and here's the sliding scale of subsidies we'll give you if you're poor, paid for by everybody else who's buying in." (You could roll back the Reagan tax cuts and make it all free, but that's another rant.)

We elected you because we expected you to have the courage of your convictions. Here's how. Not the "single payer Medicare for all" that many of us would prefer, but a simple, "Medicare for anybody who wants to buy in."

Respectfully,
Thom Hartmann

Dear President Obama: A Modest Medicare Proposal | The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23338)

[sadaist]

Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won't - just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy you're so comfortable with.


How warm & fuzzy. Too bad the post office is on the verge of bankruptcy, closing offices, laying off workers, continually rising the price of postage, and seriously considering lessening delivery days.

[sadaist]

I blame things like the idiotic title of this thread that completely mischaracterize things (deliberately) while showing a profound complete misunderstanding of what the issue was really about...



"Obama" = the guy in charge

"may" = isn't decided one way or the other, but is now a viable option on the table

"drop" = remove the provision from the bill

"Govt. health care" = the govt. run health care public option.

How exactly is the title of the thread mischaracterizing things? Seems like a solid grasp of the subject with only a few choice words.

[bueno bob]

"May" is "may". Doesn't mean "will". I will say that Obama's wording on this doesn't sound pleasant, but I'm hopeful that it was simply a placation speech.

Personally, I hold insurance companies who don't want the competition (and can't deal with the ensuing loss of profits it would undoubtedly create them) and major media pushes of misinformation from Fox News pundits to blame for him taking that position in the first place.

It could actually prove beneficial though - if people calm down enough, hopefully a public option can get passed through without a lot of less than bright people screaming and hollering about what Glenn Beck says inside their city halls.

Time will tell. Hopefully Obama takes the right stance on this and sticks to his guns.

[FORD]

How warm & fuzzy. Too bad the post office is on the verge of bankruptcy, closing offices, laying off workers, continually rising the price of postage, and seriously considering lessening delivery days.

The post office analogy really doesn't hold up. Here's why.......

Nobody writes letters anymore. They send e mail.

Many people pay their bills online, either with a credit card or through their bank, rather than mailing checks. And more recently, those bills are delivered electronically as well. Hell, some people automate the whole process so their bills are automatically paid every month.

All of that is great from a green perspective (less trees killed to make paper) and it saves time and money all around from the creditors to the consumer. Unfortunately, the post office takes the hit from losing all that paper that used to go through their system, and selling the stamps that were glued on to it. Even now they probably sell more stamps to collectors than to people who actually use them to mail shit.

That sort of obsolescence isn't going to happen to a public option health care system. Microsoft Outlook or Mozilla Thunderbird isn't going to do shit for you when you're sick or injured.

[sadaist]

The post office analogy really doesn't hold up. Here's why.......

I agree. But Obama picking that as his analogy was a bad choice. That's what happens when he doesn't have a teleprompter with someone elses words for him.

[Seshmeister]

Well at least there is no doubt any more about who actually runs the USA.

[Nickdfresh]

"Obama" = the guy in charge

"may" = isn't decided one way or the other, but is now a viable option on the table

"drop" = remove the provision from the bill

"Govt. health care" = the govt. run health care public option.

How exactly is the title of the thread mischaracterizing things? Seems like a solid grasp of the subject with only a few choice words.

It's means that you're portraying the "gov't option" as something far greater and more insidious than it actually was. It was/is little more than a medicare-like option for people who can't afford proper health care or for people with "preexisting conditions" (like you?) that cannot find insurance...

It was a gov't health care "option," not the end all, be all of health care reform.

[Nickdfresh]

I agree. But Obama picking that as his analogy was a bad choice. That's what happens when he doesn't have a teleprompter with someone elses words for him.

Yeah. He should of used the military analogy. We pay for a massively, prohibitively expensive systems that we can no longer afford to defend against enemies that have bought up a large portion of the US and sell products in our stores at near subsidized prices. And they don't make any money! (unless maybe you're an oil company)..

[ELVIS]

I do not think for profit hospitals are the answer.

What's wrong with profit ??

I also think insurance companies should not have the power to raise rates or cut what is covered in the name of profits.

Should the same apply to your car insurance ??

Where is the incentive to even have an insurance company if there's no profit or competition ??



The free market is based on profit and competition...but the market can't compete with the government because they either misuse tax dollars or print Monolopy money...

Either way, it's not going anywhere. Even Obama knows it now. It's crumbling in front of his telepromtor eyes...


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

The free market is based on profit and competition...
:elvis:

It's also based on collusion and lobbying (otherwise known as legal bribery). And the free market is largely a myth to an extent...


but the market can't compete with the government because they either misuse tax dollars or print Monolopy money...


Again, with the fundamental ignorance and misinformation. Only select people would be allowed to apply for "gub'erment insurance" just as only the qualified can receive Medicare or VA benefits. In fact, it would have caused real competition and forced down rates rather than a few insurance companies competing to see who can charge the highest rate in particular regional locations. In fact, many medical insurance provisions are fundamentally ANTI-COMPETITION!!! And example would be that though I live in NYS, I can still buy auto-insurance from Tempe, AZ if I want. But I have to pay more exorbitant premiums based in a very narrow geographical location with med insurance..

[ELVIS]

Well, that needs to change, within the market!

If you want health insurance, sell an SUV, stop the constant home upgrades, eat out less than six times a month and PAY FOR IT!

You're going to anyway if the government takes control...

Freedom is about choices...both good and bad...

We don't need any more government control. We NEED much less...


:elvis:

[LoungeMachine]

The free market is based on profit and competition...:

How'd that work for Banking and Wall St. lately?

You cant play football without rules, referees, or out of bounds markers, dipshit.

Markets MUST be regulated, or else disaster follows.

Name a successful "free market" today.

:gulp:

Free of regulations and/or government oversight.

WE THE PEOPLE are the government, by the way.

[ELVIS]

Small business, and they're under attack!

[ELVIS]

And I never said no rules, DIPSHIT!

[LoungeMachine]

Small business, and they're under attack!

That's not a "free market", dipshit.

:gulp:

Come back to the chalkboard when you're ready...

[ELVIS]

Oh, it's not ??

[LoungeMachine]

No, dipshit.

:gulp:

[bueno bob]

Gibbs insists Obama not backing off public option - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul)

Gibbs insists Obama not backing off personal option

29 mins ago

WASHINGTON – White House spokesman Robert Gibbs insists the Obama administration has not shifted its goals on health care reform or distanced itself from a government-run public insurance option.

He said in a meeting with reporters Tuesday morning that news stories suggesting that the administration was ready to abandon the public option as it battles to push health care reform through were overblown. The rash of reports began after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (seh-BEEL'-yuhs) appeared to signal the president was open to health care cooperatives as an alternative.

Gibbs said there was no intention to indicate a change in policy. He said, "If it was a signal, it was a dog whistle we started blowing weeks ago."

***

...so, like I said...we'll see what happens...

[Nitro Express]

How'd that work for Banking and Wall St. lately?

You cant play football without rules, referees, or out of bounds markers, dipshit.

Markets MUST be regulated, or else disaster follows.

Name a successful "free market" today.

:gulp:

Free of regulations and/or government oversight.

WE THE PEOPLE are the government, by the way.

I majored in international finance and we often would get into class discussions about this. If you let the free market run with no regulation the successful people eventually become a monopoly and then a tiranny. If you have too much regulation you run into a Soviet Union type situation that goes broke in the end.

The problem we are running into now is nobody trusts big corporations or the govt. Both are riddled with corruption and they seem to be merging. How can one regulate the other when they share interests? Sadly presidential candidates that have any chance of winning are marketed like Budweiser or Coke. A big marketing budget is needed to get the votes. Then you look at investment banks Goldman Sachs and they have had insider ties with Washington DC for years.

I really think there is a Wall Street/Corporate oligarchy that pulls more and more strings in Washington. They play the Republicans and Democrats off each other. Bush sold war and used terrorism as an excuse to run over our Constitutional rights. Obama and Bush have given trillions of tax dollars to bankers while they jack the fees and interest on the little guy up. War seems to continue with both parties and the military contractors do well.

The govt. seems to reward the corporations, the banks, the military contractors no matter who is in charge. Maybe the above are and people are thinking that more and more. The bailout has pissed people off and they are saying enough is enough. People no longer trust their govt. or corporate America to fix shit.

[Nitro Express]

I watched Obama sell the plan in Montana. He contradicted himself. First he said the plan was to give the private insurance companies competition. Then he said the federal plan would allow an individual to pool in with more people and get a better rate. Now he was just thinking on his feet and it was obvious Obama didn't even know what the plan really was.

Then when he was asked how this was to be paid for he had no specifics on that whatsoever. In other words, let's hard sell the plan, pass the legislation, and then we have the power to refine the details at the govt. agency level. They just want the power. Period. There is no real plan. They are just trying to get more power due to the fact they got the bankers bailout so easy so they are going to try and get more easy.

[Nitro Express]

Obama is a great public personality. He's a good salesman. But it all starts to look thin when the thinking people ask specific questions and he has no specific answers and those answers contradict each other. He's very good at making everyone feel comfortable, brings in a friendly atmosphere, he's your buddy but yet remains presidential. The thing is the hallaluja fest is wearing thing when we have lost 2.5 million jobs since he's come into office and people see the bankers buy out was a scam. People aren't buying it anymore.

[Nitro Express]

People are getting sick of politicians period.

[FORD]

I agree. But Obama picking that as his analogy was a bad choice. That's what happens when he doesn't have a teleprompter with someone elses words for him.

His analogy was that the Post Office (self-contained federal government agency) was able to compete against the private companies (UPS/FedEx/etc.) and that much is true. It's not the private companies that are causing the problems for the US Postal Service, it's the fact that people don't send a lot of paper back and forth anymore.

When they do, it's usually an overnight document, and while the Post Office does have their own Express Mail Service that competes on the level that UPS or FedEx do, I can't say they do it better. I used to manage the shipping for a small software company, and we only used Express Mail Service as a last resort when there was some odd reason the other companies couldn't do it. (i.e. UPS & FedEx won't do anything without a street address) Priority Mail is still a pretty good deal though, if your shipment isn't absolutely time crucial.

But none of this is really analogous at all to the health care crisis. Other than the fact that the corporate insurance companies KNOW that they would lose their asses to a public option if they didn't change their criminal practices. And that's exactly why they fear it so much.

[WACF]

Well, that needs to change, within the market!

If you want health insurance, sell an SUV, stop the constant home upgrades, eat out less than six times a month and PAY FOR IT!

You're going to anyway if the government takes control...

:elvis:

It's not like that man.

look North.

The government controls our health care through our tax dollars.

There are lots of SUVs, Home reno stores and contractors, more restraunts than anyone should require and the sky is full of jets heading around the world.

We are not suffering because of it.

like you we have rich and poor.

Pull up to the gas pumps and you see who drives what...pull up to the hospital and the beds are all the same.

Don't fear it man...try and shape it to what is good for you and those around you.

You have the chance now to make it into something.

[Nitro Express]

Actually Obama can think on his feet pretty good. He's not the bumbling idiot Bush was. The thing is, unless you are really in the drivers seat and have your own agenda, you start to contradict yourself. Just like keeping lies straight. Obama was contradicting himself in Montana by saying first the health care plan was to compete and then later saying it was to negotiate better prices. It can't be both. Obama was skillfully matching his real time answer to the person asking the question.

The main strategy was to put Obama out there and have him win people over. He went to states where he has some opposition. When that didn't work, they are regrouping and coming up with another plan. All the Democrats know how to do at this point is get Obama out there and call their opposition names. Obama is their string leader and once he starts to lose credbility they don't know what to do.

[WACF]

Actually Obama can think on his feet pretty good. He's not the bumbling idiot Bush was. The thing is, unless you are really in the drivers seat and have your own agenda, you start to contradict yourself. Just like keeping lies straight. Obama was contradicting himself in Montana by saying first the health care plan was to compete and then later saying it was to negotiate better prices. It can't be both. Obama was skillfully matching his real time answer to the person asking the question.

The main strategy was to put Obama out there and have him win people over. He went to states where he has some opposition. When that didn't work, they are regrouping and coming up with another plan. All the Democrats know how to do at this point is get Obama out there and call their opposition names. Obama is their string leader and once he starts to lose credbility they don't know what to do.

IF...and I do mean If...Obama's team actually knows what it wants...it is doing a terrible job of telling the poeple.

It took canada decades to get where we are with it...you won't accomplish it in one bill.

But...the Dems need to get educated on it...then educate you on it...then debate it...then put a bill forward.

It really seems Obama is pushing something he is not entirely clear on...and the people opposed really don't even know what they are fighting against.

In some ways...it really seems like people are voting against their own best interest.

[LoungeMachine]

Well said....... for a CheeseHead. ;)

:gulp:

[FORD]

IF...and I do mean If...Obama's team actually knows what it wants...it is doing a terrible job of telling the poeple.

It took canada decades to get where we are with it...you won't accomplish it in one bill.

But...the Dems need to get educated on it...then educate you on it...then debate it...then put a bill forward.

It really seems Obama is pushing something he is not entirely clear on...and the people opposed really don't even know what they are fighting against.

In some ways...it really seems like people are voting against their own best interest.

That's exactly what's happening. Between the corporate media spin, and the religious wackos telling these people that homosexuals are going to force them to have abortions, the "red states" have been voting against their own best interests for decades now. Despite the economic devastation in many of those same states. Despite the fact that these people are no better served by the current fucked up health care system than us "blue state libruls" are.

If the Repukes dropped their "God, Guns, and Gays" agenda, the red-staters would have to see them for the party of the 1% corporate rich that they truly are. As for the media.... well they take so much money from insurance companies and big pharma that they don't dare tell the truth.

[LoungeMachine]

If the Repukes dropped their "God, Guns, and Gays" agenda, the red-staters would have to see them for the party of the 1% corporate rich that they truly are. .

EXACTLY

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Oh, it's not ??

Certainly not in the world of health insurance. It's essentially a small band of providers deciding what they want to charge, with rates skyrocketing at over two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation...

[ELVIS]

He's not the bumbling idiot Bush was.

Bush wasn't a bumbling idiot, no more than Obama is a bumbling telepromptor reader...


;)

[ELVIS]

Certainly not in the world of health insurance. It's essentially a small band of providers deciding what they want to charge, with rates skyrocketing at over two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation...

I'm not saying healthcare reform is not needed, but a government insurance plan will not help...

If it's regulated or suported by government, it should be on the state level, not federal...

[bueno bob]

Bush wasn't a bumbling idiot,

There's a treasure trove of YouTube videos that clearly state otherwise...well, if his eight years as President isn't enough proof for you.

[Nickdfresh]

I'm not saying healthcare reform is not needed, but a government insurance plan will not help...

How do you know?


If it's regulated or suported by government, it should be on the state level, not federal...


Why? So it can be sold to the highest bidder in Louisiana backrooms?

[ELVIS]

What has the federal government done right in recent memory ??

And as far as Louisiana, Bobby Jindal is doing just fine...

[ELVIS]

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQSHPMZhcl4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQSHPMZhcl4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>


:elvis:

[Blackflag]

If it's regulated or suported by government, it should be on the state level, not federal...

I have no problem with the states developing health care solutions. In fact, it just means more competition to which which type of solution works and which doesn't. For the federal government to get involved is just a power grab - see other thread on pharmaceutical company deals.

[standin]

Then quit going to f/n wars and invest in the the people of the USA.


If those are the sorts you associate with, Elvis. You are those sorts.

P.s. Elvis. Total lie of a headline for that clip.

[ELVIS]

The show was much longer than three minutes...

I saw it...

Jindal shut Larry King down at every opportunity..

[Guitar Shark]

I'm not interested in watching the video, but couldn't a potted plant own Larry King?

[FORD]

The state "co-ops" will not work, because the risk pool would be too small to compete with corporate insurance. Blue Cross, in fact, actually started out as a co-op. They evolved into a corporate insurance company exactly because they could not compete otherwise.

Only a national risk pool with lower admin costs and no obligation to shareholders and executive greed can compete with the insurance industry thieves.

[standin]

Jindal shut Larry King down at every opportunity..

That is simply a fraudulent statement, Greg.

[ELVIS]

I'm not interested in watching the video, but couldn't a potted plant own Larry King?

True...:biggrin:

[Blackflag]

the risk pool would be too small to compete with corporate insurance.

There are 30M+ people in california, 20M+ in New York...and isn't BCBS currently broken up by state?

There is no support for your statement.

[Seshmeister]

There's a treasure trove of YouTube videos that clearly state otherwise...well, if his eight years as President isn't enough proof for you.

http://i29.tinypic.com/300wnrd.jpg

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Bush wasn't a bumbling idiot, no more than Obama is a bumbling telepromptor reader...
;)

I really don't understand this fascination with the teleprompter....

Are you saying there was a president in recent memory that DIDN'T use it ??

[Va Beach VH Fan]

I'm probably just not paying close enough attention, but if the "Public Option" eventually gets dropped, then just what is left to reform, and how do the 50 million uninsured get healthcare ??

[FORD]

That is indeed the question. And the likely answer is mandatory corporate insurance like they have in Massachusetts. As if that's going to be much help to the unemployed or underemployed who can't afford insurance NOW?

[ELVIS]

What is "underemployed" ??

[FORD]

What is "underemployed" ??

Someone whose living wage job was outsourced to India and is now working at Wal Mart or some other low paying job without benefits. Or someone with a college degree who can't get a job in their field (also because of outsourcing, more than likely)

[LoungeMachine]

What is "underemployed" ??

really?

Get out much?

:gulp:

[Dr. Love]

well I guess democrats can't get anything done unless they have a super-duper majority.

for fuck's sake, how useless can these people be

[ELVIS]

Someone whose living wage job was outsourced to India and is now working at Wal Mart or some other low paying job without benefits. Or someone with a college degree who can't get a job in their field (also because of outsourcing, more than likely)

And you helped cause it...

[FORD]

And you helped cause it...

How's that? I'm not in the BCE. :(

[sadaist]

What is "underemployed" ??

Someone lucky enough to have a job, but still bitching they don't get paid enough?

[ELVIS]

How's that? I'm not in the BCE. :(

That's what you think...

[FORD]

Believe me, I think I'd know if I was in the BCE. I wouldn't be here right now, I'd be off in South America supervising the family cocaine plantation with Babs Jr. and her cousin Lauren.

[ELVIS]

Maybe you can find a way to apply...

[standin]

<object width="660" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Z_RVl-ph3s&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Z_RVl-ph3s&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object>

[bueno bob]

http://i29.tinypic.com/300wnrd.jpg

Grate game...

In truth, all rebellions are ultimately boring; every rebel is, at heart, a closet aristocrat...

[Seshmeister]

See the non photo shopped females in the background.

Happier times... :)

[bueno bob]

See the non photo shopped females in the background.

Happier times... :)

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_01/smileDM0403_468x484.jpg

Ahhh....I was born too late, lmao...

[Seshmeister]

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee43/Seshmeister/sexist.jpg

[Seshmeister]

While we're off topic...

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee43/Seshmeister/obi.jpg

[Blackflag]

While we're off topic...


Why are you always looking for an opportunity to post old-man-ass? :biggrin:

[ELVIS]

Maybe he likes it...

[hideyoursheep]

If it were Yngwie Ass your nose would be in it..




























:lol:

[thome]

I have listened and am ready to comment so here how it go..

I have been wondering for days what does th AMA think, The American Medical Association.

Why aren't they spearheading all the debates. Why are they silent, they represent all doctors and hospitals they are the lawyers and the mouth piece for the medical association, are they not..?

Why havent -THEY- told us what -THEY THINK-??

I am upset at all the yahoos here and on the tube in the paper drolling on and on about this and that who do we listen too who knows what is best?

What do the doctors think?? about the lack of privatized medicine staring them in the pocket book..?

Fukk everybody else.




They say they are -FOR- Obamas plan, but I believe within some guidelines that have yet to be ironed out.
I believe this translates to as mentioned in this thread, Illegal Aliens clogging up the system, and what I fear and have witnessed is poeple glutting thier doctors for drugsand not taking care of themselves thru proper diet and self worth treatment of thier bodies.

Addicts and I mean JUNKIES that live in suburbia and bowl for the PTA and go to church ... like little subrban housewives with prozac to feel god about life daily, and ambien to pass out and not deal with life at night, and vicodin to ease the pain of the daily grind of nothing .


So I looked around a little bit and here is a quote from thier position.
What should be done to improve the system?
We need to control the unnecessary costs that are littering our health care system. We need to provide
quality, affordable health care for all Americans. We need to promote prevention and wellness initiatives
that can help you avoid diseases such as obesity, diabetes and cancer. And we need to protect the vital
relationship between you and your doctor, and limit interference by insurance companies and
the government.

[Big Train]

Well...The AMA, like the AARP, is fighting it's own membership.

Doctors seem to think Obamacare is bullshit too..

Forbes.com - Magazine Article (http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/17/obamacare-doctors-ama-business-healthcare-obamacare_print.html)

Doctors Versus The AMA
David Whelan, 08.17.09, 1:15 PM ET


James Klemis, an interventional cardiologist who practices in Memphis, was at a lake house on a Saturday earlier this month when he got a text message from a friend about a health care town meeting that evening. He jumped in his car and drove 45 minutes to an inner-city auditorium. There he met up with 15 of his doctor colleagues, who all showed up to give their congressman, Steve Cohen, an earful.

"It's a very poorly crafted plan that's being rushed through," Klemis says, who spoke out against what he called socialized medicine at the event.

Doctors like Klemis are organizing against ObamaCare all over the country. Yet it's without the support of the biggest national doctors lobby, the American Medical Association. Within two days of the House passing its health bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee in late July, the AMA gave the President a rare bit of good news by endorsing the bill.

It was a shock to many of the group's 250,000 doctor members. The bill contains a vigorous new public health plan for people under the age of 65. The Lewin Group, a research organization owned by UnitedHealth, estimates that the legislation would cause somewhere between 34 million and 85 million people to go from having private to government insurance and would pay doctors on average 14&#37; less than private HMOs. This weekend, there were reports that the White House is floating the idea of reform without a public plan, though all the bills that have made it through committee contain one.

Just like the AARP has had to backtrack in its support of ObamaCare since it became clear that many older people fear they will lose Medicare benefits, the AMA has also begun to backtrack some, saying that it expects the final bill to look different. Says AMA President James Rohack in a statement: "We're at the beginning of the process, and we'll stay engaged to improve the final bill."

If the AMA can't squelch this grassroots rebellion, it might be less able, in the future, to claim to represent doctors in public policy debates. Physicians had already been concerned over increased government control of health care and the Medicare-like price setting of a new government plan. In fact, AMA leadership had been speaking out against such a public plan all year, while promoting ways to reform the insurance market and other less controversial measures. At its June House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, the doctors there had deliberately avoided endorsing one, while voting for a list of other principles.

The bill that passed through the House in July also notably offered no relief from malpractice lawsuits, the top priority of the doctors' lobby for years. President Obama had promised to consider tort reform during a conciliatory speech at the same June meeting, though the bill has not turned out to have any. "We're irate," says Klemis, an AMA member.

The president made things worse by saying doctors choose to perform surgery on patients to make money when cheaper care would be better, citing tonsillectomies and foot amputations of diabetic patients as examples. The College of Surgeons, with 74,000 members, called Obama's statement about taking out kids' tonsils for money: "ill-informed and dangerous. We were dismayed at this characterization." The Florida Medical Association, with 19,000 members, also sent an angry letter.

Historically, the AMA aggressively pushed back attempts to centralize the health care industry. It successfully opposed Harry Truman's attempt to create a national health plan in 1948 and another attempt in 1962. Doctors made it clear, and the public seemed to agree, that they should not be government workers. The AMA tried again but failed to block Lyndon Johnson's creation of Medicare in 1965, but then assumed its usual role, joining other interest groups to help foil HillaryCare in 1993.

This time around it's different, the AMA says. It supports the House bill because it expands coverage to more people (33 million uninsured would be covered, according to Lewin) and forces insurance companies to take all comers, even those with preexisting conditions. The group also secured a promise--although one that's not so secure that it's included in the cost-scoring of the bill--that Medicare would start raising its reimbursement rates for physicians over the next 10 years. If it happens, it would mean $245 billion in increased Medicare doctor payments. "The status quo is unacceptable," the group's president, Dr. James Rohack, a Texas cardiologist, said at the time of the endorsement.

The move proved costly to the AMA. It unearthed longtime tensions with doctors who see $1 trillion being spent on health care but doubt it will trickle down to help their patients or make their practices more financially viable. Right now, Medicare pays an average of $54 for sometimes hour-long appointments, says John Slatosky, a family doctor in Randleman, N.C. To pay for the new public plan, he predicts, the government will have to cut benefits from Medicare. "The AMA has stomped on primary care doctors for years," says Slatosky, who claims he's had to borrow from a bank all year to keep afloat.

An online straw poll on the doctors-only Web site Sermo.com found that 94% of 10,500 physicians polled oppose the bill. While the sample isn't scientific, and may have attracted an anti-AMA crowd, it's gotten attention as a vote of confidence against the group. The head of Sermo, Daniel Palestrant, has been on an anti-AMA rampage all summer, appearing on cable news stations to say that doctors have been sold out. Doctors aren't the reason why costs have risen or people can't find insurance, he argues: "Overall health care spending has gone up while physician salaries have gone down."

Palestrant accuses the AMA of being more concerned with keeping its seat at the White House table so it can protect its various ancillary moneymakers, like its estimated $75 million business licensing procedure codes to HMOs. (The AMA says Palestrant is upset because it ended a partnership deal with Sermo in May. Palestrant says he let the deal expire because the AMA doesn't care about its members.)

Whatever may motivate Palestrant, the anti-AMA bandwagon has picked up speed. Seven state medical associations--including those in New Jersey, Texas and Georgia--took the highly unusual step of breaking with their parent to denounce the bill. Others big ones like Arkansas' have also expressed deep skepticism, without specifically breaking with the AMA.

Several groups of specialty doctors--neurosurgeons, plastic surgeons and general surgeons--have joined the anti-ObamaCare coalition and have even been joined by two physicians who recently served as presidents of the AMA.

"The AMA," says Gregory Tarasidis, a head and neck surgeon in Greenwood, S.C. who is currently president of his state medical association, "came out too early and too strong."

[thome]

My mother............ yes I have one..#####

....has Blue Cross and the addition of the Plus Care I have read it all, but don't really remember, she is like a billion years old.

She pays nothing maybe $3.00 a script and any time she goes for a check up FREE.

Might as well call it Universal American Free Health Care.

They pay all.Our government cause she is over a certain age and that is true for all Americans.
Same if she is hospitalized whatever complete coverage.

So, if you don't need medical assistance the new medical plan is of no meaniing to you only if you get hurt...or whatever.

If you are terminal or incapacitated to the point you can't earn a living yet have a viable amount of life left sometimes decades, you can go on full dissability ( at any age,you must get a doctor to sign off that you have a dissability that is life long and incapassitating))and the goverment pays everything and your rent, and,, and, and...you just can't show a income of like 1200$ a month or something.??

If you are the kind of person who likes to be on permanent speed dial of your doctor, a system manipulator,drug addict , due to real or imagined pain or little monsters in your head you are a problem to any system.


Most people don't use the health care they got and a few make up for that 10 fold.

So I think it is all just political juice to fire thier jobs up(the politicos) with some "Important stuff down at the office today honey, gotta run...."

If all these libs care so much for the people of America (what a joke)..

Why do they hate everybody else in the world is that the next step world wide health care .....It should be or they are not jesus like at all in thier lieing bullsh!t speeches about caring for americans health ....oh yeah the rest of the world we don't care about them...

opps.shhhhhhhh!!!!


I get it a thousand points of light the new world order the dems are playing into the republicans agena of a one world goverment headed by The USA...shhhhhhh ...don't tell the narrow minde fools they think this is thier idea and is only for the americans they so love...lol

Yes One health Care For all Americans....

More like that

[Satan]

Well...The AMA, like the AARP, is fighting it's own membership.



The AMA has always been a right wing leaning organization, and AARP became insurance industry whores some time ago. No surprises there.

[thome]

The AMA has always been a right wing leaning organization, and AARP became insurance industry whores some time ago. No surprises there.


AARP is nothing more than a monthly fee to belong to a membership of a magazine designed towards oldsters, but oldsters think it is something more.

I really don't think they represent anything more than sending out that mag and making money.

To me what I have seen it is like -Tiger Beat- for the aged.

Perhaps they have opened up some debate and helped the elderly. I really am just commenting here and have no real research...?

I do know they have almost got my mom to buy some AARP insurance, to make her more covered thru blue cross, that she never needs, due to what she already has and I caught it before she sent the money.

AARP wanted her to pay for something that is free, if anyone just signs up for it.

I found in my mind...duh... that AARP getting a cut to send her paperwork to something free........ was somewhat questionable in ethics.

It is all very legal just Blue Cross thru AARP a middle man scam..?

[Big Train]

The AMA has always been a right wing leaning organization, and AARP became insurance industry whores some time ago. No surprises there.

I was literally waiting for you to give me that exact response Ford...errr...Satan. I just fucking knew you would say that.

Which leads to a bigger question: Why would the AMA (a known right leaning org, right?) go against their own membership (of right leaning medical professionals) ? Something doesn't make sense about that, don't you think?

Is Prescott working his BCE magic down there?

[Seshmeister]

The UK equivalent of the AMA the BMA were incredibly against us getting our public healthcare and fought like mad to try and stop it.

Now the vast majority are in favor.

It's not up to the doctors pressure group. It's about the patients not about their conservative self interests.

[ppg960]

Ladies and Gents....
Be sure to have a say / vote / input or what have you on Universal Health Care.
The Canadian Gov't runs are system and it's poor with "hallway medicine", under paid doctors and nurses and long wait times for specialist. It's not great and it's not FREE.

The taxes we pay here are massive.
Personal income tax
Goods / Service Tax - GST
Provincial Sales Tax - PST

I'll post more on this later.
Don't let the Gov't run the system. They will fuck it up and drive it broke.

[bueno bob]

Ladies and Gents....
Be sure to have a say / vote / input or what have you on Universal Health Care.
The Canadian Gov't runs are system and it's poor with "hallway medicine", under paid doctors and nurses and long wait times for specialist. It's not great and it's not FREE.

The taxes we pay here are massive.
Personal income tax
Goods / Service Tax - GST
Provincial Sales Tax - PST

I'll post more on this later.
Don't let the Gov't run the system. They will fuck it up and drive it broke.

Thing about it is that we've already been paying for universal health care tax-wise, we're just not getting it...it's been that way for quite a few years now...

[Satan]

Thing about it is that we've already been paying for universal health care tax-wise, we're just not getting it...it's been that way for quite a few years now...

Over 60 years, actually. This all started with Harry Truman. And the Repukes fucked it up then too.

[standin]

My mother............ yes I have one..#####

....has Blue Cross and the addition of the Plus Care I have read it all, but don't really remember, she is like a billion years old.

She pays nothing maybe $3.00 a script and any time she goes for a check up FREE.

Might as well call it Universal American Free Health Care.

They pay all.Our government cause she is over a certain age and that is true for all Americans.
Same if she is hospitalized whatever complete coverage.

So, if you don't need medical assistance the new medical plan is of no meaniing to you only if you get hurt...or whatever.

If you are terminal or incapacitated to the point you can't earn a living yet have a viable amount of life left sometimes decades, you can go on full dissability ( at any age,you must get a doctor to sign off that you have a dissability that is life long and incapassitating))and the goverment pays everything and your rent, and,, and, and...you just can't show a income of like 1200$ a month or something.??

If you are the kind of person who likes to be on permanent speed dial of your doctor, a system manipulator,drug addict , due to real or imagined pain or little monsters in your head you are a problem to any system.


Most people don't use the health care they got and a few make up for that 10 fold.

So I think it is all just political juice to fire thier jobs up(the politicos) with some "Important stuff down at the office today honey, gotta run...."

If all these libs care so much for the people of America (what a joke)..

Why do they hate everybody else in the world is that the next step world wide health care .....It should be or they are not jesus like at all in thier lieing bullsh!t speeches about caring for americans health ....oh yeah the rest of the world we don't care about them...

opps.shhhhhhhh!!!!


I get it a thousand points of light the new world order the dems are playing into the republicans agena of a one world goverment headed by The USA...shhhhhhh ...don't tell the narrow minde fools they think this is thier idea and is only for the americans they so love...lol

Yes One health Care For all Americans....

More like that

If you are terminal or incapacitated to the point you can't earn a living yet have a viable amount of life left sometimes decades, you can go on full dissability ( at any age,you must get a doctor to sign off that you have a dissability that is life long and incapassitating))and the goverment pays everything and your rent, and,, and, and...you just can't show a income of like 1200$ a month or something.??

No that is not completely true.

It is very difficult to get on disability for many if not most people. There are a few exceptions to that rule one being terminal or blind.

The type of work is often not considered. For example you cut off your fingers and you are a carpenter of 30 years. That person is not disabled and have limited choice on how to proceed after such accident. IF he or she happens to be under workman's comp at the time, there might be limited help. But not if he or she has this accident at home. There are some major flaws in thinking disability is a catch all for the disabled.

Persons on disability, DO NOT have "the government pays everything and your rent, and,, and, and..."

How much a parson receives depends on how much the person has paid in social security. If not enough the government will supplement it up just above $690 a month. They do not "pay your rent", pay your food, buy clothing, buy toilet paper. It comes from that $690. Public housing is a whole other monster. It all varies and from state to state.

What it sounds like is the people you spoke with or know are frauding the system.

And it is not a matter of "you just can't show a income of like 1200$ a month or something." To not report income is fraud. No matter if it "shows" or not.
For every $2 earned a $1 is taken from the total benefit amount. That may sound like a good deal, but when you are dealing in such small budgets, the extra costs can add up pretty quick, especially for some disabilities to be a managed in a day to day work environment. You would be surprised what is not covered.

[ELVIS]

Don't let the Gov't run the system. They will fuck it up and drive it broke.

my point EXACTLY!

[LoungeMachine]

Don't let the Gov't run the system. They will fuck it up and drive it broke.



Okay, to take your "logic" to the natural conclusion....

Let's get the government out of the business of DEFENSE.

ALL private armies, based on a free market system. Want to be protected? Better buy your DEFENSE INSURANCE.

ALL private roads. Why should there be a natioanl highway system? Let Halliburton build and run our highways, they're running out of wars to fuck up.

ALL private cops. Why the FUCK is the government "policing" us??? WTF?

ALL private air traffic control. The government shouldnt be in the business of telling planes when the fuck they can land!!!!!!

All private food and drug inspection. Who The Fuck does the government think they are poking around the health and safety of what we put in our bodies.

:gulp:

moron.

[LoungeMachine]

my point EXACTLY!

Yeah, well.... you're an IDIOT too, so that stands to reason.

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Okay, to take your "logic" to the natural conclusion....

Let's get the government out of the business of DEFENSE.

ALL private armies, based on a free market system. Want to be protected? Better buy your DEFENSE INSURANCE.

ALL private roads. Why should there be a natioanl highway system? Let Halliburton build and run our highways, they're running out of wars to fuck up.

ALL private cops. Why the FUCK is the government "policing" us??? WTF?

ALL private air traffic control. The government shouldnt be in the business of telling planes when the fuck they can land!!!!!!

All private food and drug inspection. Who The Fuck does the government think they are poking around the health and safety of what we put in our bodies.

:gulp:

moron.

Aren't those all examples of things that have been fucked up?

But sometimes you accept that things are going to be fucked up by the federal government, because that's the lesser of evils. That doesn't mean you accept that it's ok to fuck everything up.

I mean, you can't have a private army, fucked up or not. Is that really your best argument why the federal government should fuck up health care? Can't be. If Nick were here, he'd be screaming, 'strawman! strawman!'

[FORD]

I mean, you can't have a private army, fucked up or not. Is that really your best argument why the federal government should fuck up health care? Can't be. If Nick were here, he'd be screaming, 'strawman! strawman!'

But it's not a strawman. Ever heard of BlacKKKwater?

[Blackflag]

But it's not a strawman. Ever heard of BlacKKKwater?

Thanks for proving my point.

[FORD]

Well they're certainly "fucked up", but you can't say they don't exist. Which is what you said, Pibbles.

[Blackflag]

Well they're certainly "fucked up", but you can't say they don't exist. Which is what you said, Pibbles.

I can say the same thing about cancer and Winger. What's the topic again, Ford? I don't remember now.

[FORD]

But Dick Cheney isn't ordering Winger to do the job of the US Military. Or the CIA. At least not yet anyway.... it has been a while since they had a hit record, they might actually need the money.

[Blackflag]

But Dick Cheney isn't ordering Winger to do the job of the US Military. Or the CIA. At least not yet anyway.... it has been a while since they had a hit record, they might actually need the money.

They've never had a hit record. Shit, I can't remember what we were talking about again... Oh, yeah. Why do you hate the children, Ford? Why? :(