The R's plan is thus:

1. Oppose anything and everything that comes from anywhere to the left of Atilla the Hun.

2. Refuse to even converse, much less negotiate...then whine about not being "included" in the conversation.

3. Point out that Obama said he'd practice bipartisanship, and blame it on him...failing to not #'s 1 and 2 above.

The beauty of the R's plan is that it is simple (good for their followers), and it encompasses virtually every facet of every issue.

It can even be boiled down to one word for those who can't grasp the nuances of the above...

No.

That's about it.

I think the D response to that should be to tell 'em to go to Hell. They fukked everything up royally over the past eight years, and won't even man up enough to admit it...they got all their asses thrown out of office because of it...because the people don't want any more of their "ideas"...

Either they play ball, or the game goes on without them.

They can whine about it all they want, but if they really have a problem with it, they're six or seven years too late to fix it now...and really, the problem is their own, not anyone else's.

They caused it, and they can suffer the consequences of it.

Cool thing is that them suffering the consequences of their childish and irresponsible behavior is good for the country.

Fish on...

Todd

Vic, the public option is...an option. No one has to sign up for it, and the only way it will drive the private insurance companies out of business is if it does it better...if it doesn't, why would anyone choose it, and how could it drive the privates out of business?

Competition is a two way street...and no one is going to shove anything down your throat, no matter what the loudmouths are yelling on TV, the radio, and at the town halls...

Increasing options, increasing competition, driving up services and quality, while driving down prices...

Is there really any better way to define the "free market" and the "American Way"...?

Note: Yes, there are lots of other ways to define those things, but most are cynical and angry...the "real" and pure way to define it is just as I did, at least that's what I think.

Fish on...

Todd

bwp

It is house bill 3218. I haven't read any of it. The gist of what I have read about it is that it allows competition across state lines, allows individuals to purchase through alternate pools(other than employers), and gives tax credits that can be paid directly to insurance providers. My point was that the R's have tried to participate in the debate, but the D's have the hammer and they are using it liberally (pun intended).

KK I don't think you give me enough credit. If I wasn't interested or at least a little open minded I wouldn't take your verbal beatings and attempt to participate in the debate.

Sorry guess we will have to agree to disagree, but government setting regulations and not being accountable for at least a break even, with bottomless pockets to back up any sort of "budget shortfall" is not competition. And Obama said he wanted to run the insurance companies out of business and take the country to a single payer plan. What has changed? Why shouldn't I take him at his word on that?

3200 is structured so the public option leads to a single payer system.

Canada ranks 5th in life expectancy, the US ranks 35th.

It's because the US has more people, right, Bill..............err, Hank.

Just to keep the pot stirred.................

Sounds as if Co-ops are going to get it from both sides. That makes them sound better and better.
Single payer system........isnt that what canada has..............isnt that the system that is going down the crapper right now. I think their health sec stated it best when she said the system was "sick".
I dont get why opening up beyond state lines is a bad idea. That allows most people to shop around and opens up the options. Co-ops that increase the # of pts will give more bargining power to those in the co-op. Coverage of preexisting is a must and I agree we need to have the govern mandate that if needed.
Far as comp from the govern run plan.......that is not comp at all. No private comp can compete with the govern on a one on one basis. It is a joke to say they could or even bring it up. The govern has endless pockets via eating up tax payer dollars(which it can just raise if it runs short or "barrow" to increase debt) and can change the rules as they wish. That would be like asking junior high basketballers to compete with the Lakers when the refs are playing on the Laker squad.
And as far as bloated insur comps, well our bloated govern consumes far more and give less back than any insurer. Yet they still seem to have no profits and alway run in the red. Lets all not forget that the govern does not create wealth, it consumes it. It consumes our countries wealth and this plan will consume a lot more(especially when it is made "budget neutral" via a big arse tax increase).
Lastly, if our govern was a corp they would have files chapter 11 a long time ago. But they dont have to "compete" with anyone. They get to just run up debt and have us, our children and grandchildren pay for it. They find a way to take in trillions and cant keep a budget that brings them into surplus. Now that we are trillions down we should handover to them a huge portion of our countries econ so they can create a new entitlement they cant pay for(similar to SS and medicare). Sorry, not for me. So lets knock a little of the bloat out of them before we start pointing to bloat in private insurances companies(not that I am a fan of them either as I pay thousands a month for myself and staff and sem to get little in return).
Lastly, I understand increasing the pool very well to bring down costs. I also understand that forcing the young to pay insur when they can't afford is kinda B.S. Should everyone be insured.......I believe they should but..........Mandating they do is crap. It is ever single americans god given right to make just as bad of choice as they see fit. I grew up with no insurance and luckily never had a problem. Luckily. But would not have had the money to pay for it at the time if forced. You really want to kill this bill we should show that mandate to all those young that will be forced or penalized to pay for something they dont want.

O'no KK telling us about tort reform again. More lib spin as well. Let me tell you something with no spin from a actual point of view of someone that deals with this day in and day out. You can make the judgement.
The total cost of 2% is right off the white house talking points home page. And total cost are misleading. This is how it works in the real world. Not the KK or whitehouse spin world. When you look at the total costs of the entire system it is misleading. That includes all the govern B.S., all the insuance b.s. and everything from procedures to paperwork. The direct cost for someone in private practice is huge as it is the Dr. him or herself that pays for it(malpractice insur). And I will tell you directly that is a hell of a lot more than 2% of my income to pay for it. Thousands a year and that cost is passed to the consumer. Larger hospitals work differently but those of us in private fee for pratices must pass that large expense on in higher costs or we would be out of business. Fix it and the cost for private services will drop more than 2% guarenteed. Separate out the the bureaucatric B.S., goveern waste, medicare, and it is much larger than the figure directly costing Drs than that given by KK with CBO cut and paste.
Now this is in a fee for service practice and not govern or insurance driven. A little different in those practices but I just needed to give a different point of view on tort reform.

A friend of mines wife just had a baby a couple weeks ago. Normal delivery, wife stayed in hospital 48 hours. Cost: $20,000. Friend's hearsay is that 45% of that $20 K was for the doctor's and hospital's malpractice insurance. Don't know if it's true or not, but an astonishing price IMO. My kids total cost was $1200 each in 76 and 79, and I had no maternity insurance at the time and paid out of pocket.

In birthing mal ins is so high that a substantial number of Doc's will not do OB anymore. The other factor is your ins rates are normally negotiated with hospitals and providers by the Ins company. Seldom said is providers factor in the cost of those who do not or can not pay. All over the board on where / how much with location. Hospital's absorb a huge cost in ER's as uninsured use them as primary care providers.

It is really and amazing system we have now as many unseen cost are simply passed on to those that have ins or pay out of pocket. One of the solid arguments for reform really as we already pay for it in a round about way with bunch of folks falling through the cracks.

Just for the sake of conversation does anyone know how the Hawaiian system works? They have a lot of out patient clinics that seem to function reasonably well.

just read your part of the thread. Stir the pot time. So we don't mandate young people or anyone have health care ins. I can buy the infringement on personal liberties argument right after you explain who in the hell is going to pay their bills? If everyone got a itemized bill from the providers for actual cost of the services then prorated cost of malpractice insurance, provider cost for uninsured and unpaid services for those who can't pay imagine what would happen?

Lets take it one step farther for the sake of argument. Imagine tort reform, coupled with insurance reform to deal with cherry picking and preexisting conditions, medical service reform so that providers could only charge you for the services they provided you directly, then require mandatory coverage with federal subsidies for low income based upon the ability to pay. Not a chance in hell it would happen as lawyers, advocates, just every interest group in existence would come unglued. Infringing upon freedoms, my god your killing the working poor, what no massive court settlements,........I think the list of one liners would fill pages.

It is what it is and a pig is a pig. Follow the money on both sides of the issue, both lib & conservative as both have been bought and paid for, legally of course.

Oh.

So it's just about cancer these days, not how long you live. Here in the US, we must really cure the cancer so you can die of something else.

I missed the memo.

Please forgive.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Canucks aren't gonna live forever. BTW, the US is #50 in life expectancy, 5 spots ahead of Cuba who is revered for their health care. Canada is #8, a whopping 3 years of longer life on average, BFD. The only reason they die later is that due to their single payer system, the wait to see the coroner and be declared legally dead is really long, sometimes as long as 17 months.

Thats funny right there I dont care who you are.

It IS a BFD DB... 'cause it CLEARY demonstrates that a socialist, communist, fascist, death panel judgin', granny killin', care rationin', wating list havin' single-payer government healthcare plan can actually WORK!

KK....Arguing cost of running a medical practice or practices with you reminds me of........we lets use an analogy we can all get behind here.

It reminds me of a texas bass fisherman walking out on the Hoh in Feb in his new simms waders and jacket just out of the box one hour ago and explaining to all the old boys there how they are doing it all wrong as he read in Field and stream the only way to catch a steelhead is with a nightcrawler.

Malpractice cost are directly passed to consumers. At my offices and every office around. Not a sole I dont know out here in the sticks, we all do it. These are fee for service practices and not large hospitals but facts are facts. Take it for what it is. We can argue about how much cheaper insur would be with reform or not......that depends on malpractice comp used, but as they come down so would cost out of pts pockets. I know lawyers support your side of the isle but the issue is true, I live it everyday.

What kind of tort reform would you like to see put in place then doc? A cap on jury awards?

Under the appeals process, that pretty much happens now. Almost NEVER is the full amount awarded by a jury during a malpractice case payed in full.

Case in point is the infamous 'McDonald's hot coffee award'... where the woman supposedly got 4 million dollars from spilling hot coffee on herself. She ended up with a lot of medical bills and about $20,000 when all was said and done.

By capping award amounts you take away the very safeguards that the Tort system was designed to provide.

The whole 'frivilous lawsuit' wingnut bullsh!t is just that too! If the lawsuit truly IS frivolous... it gets thrown out before it even makes it to trial.

The one thing I could support is capping attorney's fees at billable hours plus 25% of any award... instead of the more than 40% that it's at now if it goes to trial.

What would I do to reform the legal side

#1. Use experts in the same medical profession to decide if malpractice was committed. We know what crap work is. We know who screwed something up and what was something unavoidable. No more juries of the only people not smart enough to get out of jury duty deciding something on emotion they have no idea about.
#2. No caps. But let people who know something about it decide what is reasonable. No emotional idiots.
#3. No lawyers. From either side. Let each explained what happened, review the records, bring in experts if needed and cut out the scumbags that take 40% for someone elses suffering adn those advertizing to sue on our nigthly commercials.
#4. The whole award goes to the pt or the pts family. See above why.
#5. Those who offend multiple times.....no more practicing. In any state. Some people just aren't cut out for it adn should not practice on the public.

That is it. Simple and if someone truely screws up the money goes to the correct person. Save money all the way around in court costs and the what not. Should bring down prices.

KK.....somethings the fed does well and somethings it does not. I try to keep the fed out of state rights issues but they stomp all over them anyway. Allowing insurance comp across lines would not be much of a stretch after the last 70 years of increased fed control. So be it.
Now I know I will hear it from right and left so go ahead. Luckily I am going home and will not have to read about how dumb I am until tomarrow. Night all.

The public option and saying people can keep their insurance if they want is disingenious when it says multiple times in 3200 that when you change insurance (from a job change or your company wants to change carriers) that the plan must meet government guidelines. So the government gets to set the rules so that private carriers can't compete.