Those 'government guidelines' are things like no coverage denial for pre-existing conditions and no arbitrary dropping you from the rolls Jerry.

How is that a bad thing exactly?

You're just NEVER gonna be convinced... are ya?

Edit: KK said it much better that I did.

Remember...if you like less coverage for more money, you are always welcome to keep your current inflated-premium health care...you don't have to switch up if you don't want to.

Lose your job? Just pay the COBRA premiums...what are they running, about 500% what you're paying at your job?

Fish on...

Todd

Docspud,

Your tort reform criterion #1 is fatally flawed. Time and time again doctors simply will not sanction one of their own, no matter how egregious the error it seems. I'm not saying never, but seldom enough to have the confidence of reasonable non-doctor observers. It's like they are prohibited from ratting out a fraternity brother. Since they will seldom, if ever, find that malpractice occurred, no awards will be given, so that panel, nor caps on awards are needed.

Sg

I say bring on the public option. Without it there will be no meaningful change to the health care system. Competition is fine for autos and other consumerables, but everyone in this country should have access to at least a basic level of medical care. We are a modified capitalist country. If we practiced true captialism then only a few would have money and most of the rest of us would be dirt poor. There would be no middle class. Goverment regulation and involvement has insured that the majority of us can at least live a middle class life. So why shouldn't the goverment guarantee that we get health care?

It's really sad that so many people have drank up all of the misinformation that is out there on health care reform. For all of you that think you will be enjoying the same insurance you are today 5 and 10 years from now; you are living a fantasy. The costs in this area alone with the major companies has gone up 18% for the last three years. Lets see, what's inflation this year...-.007%. Ten years ago employer based plans paid a lot more of the cost then they do today. Look, medical insurance will simply become unaffordable in the very near future for many people and for the majority with employer or union based plans, more and more costs will be passed on; that is if they decide to continue to insure you.

I used to be against single payer. Now, I think it should be seriously considered in this country. Get the profit out of the health system. I spend a lot of time in Canada as my wife is from there. I was up there last week and it was interesting to get the relatives take on all the talk about health care in Canada that has come out from here. I don't know one person up in Canada that wants any other system then single payer. Doctors prescribe treatment without goverment interference. When a Canadian goes to the hospital they are not worried about getting an unexpected bill because the goverment didn't pay for some treatment. There are waits for non-life threatning things, primarily because of a Doctor shortage and the lower number of diagnostic equipment such as MRIs when compared to the U.S. If you have something life threatning you get treatment right away. By the way, how many of you wait for several years after you turn 50 to schedule that colonoscopy? True, those who can afford it come to the U.S. to get tested or treated. But, the same thing happens here. How many movie stars have you heard about that have travelled the world seeking to get their cancer cured? If you measure results based on outcomes, the Canadians kick our butts.

What is hurting the Canadians is the same thing that is hurting Social Security and Medicare in this country, although on a lesser scale here because we don't have the huge social safety net Canada has. There simply are fewer workers to pay the tab on their system with so many baby boomers hitting that age when you need more health care and/or reaching eligibility age to collect Social Security and Medicare.

I am not a Democrat, this bill has it's weaknesses, but without a significant leap, there will be no change. However, if Congress votes for it, then they better live under the same system. I say screw the Republicans. The Dems have the big majority and should act to change this system without them.

all of this of course IMHO

+1

Sophist aptly describes almost ALL of your arguments Hank. You tenaciously adhere to the same tired ol' talking points even while being continuously proven wrong.

OK... so socialized medicine isn't the sole reason Canadians have a higher life expectancy. It obviously ISN'T causing it to be shorter either... which is what the wingnuts think socialized medicine will do to them here.

Didn't you read Mike@Northbend's post?

Canadians DON'T wait an 'ungodly' period of time for their testing either. Otherwise they wouldn't be livin' as long as they do... now would they?

It's gotta just be the entertainment factor for you here Hank... 'cause your arguments are so easily rebutted simply by employing basic facts and a touch of reason.

How long do you wait for a hip replacement if you're uninsured and in a poor financial position?



Do you figure a lot of people pay cash for an angioplasty?

And they're the rule?

Besides, that wasn't the question. In the US, an uninsured person, in poor financial shape, would wait how long?

Forever?

Do you think those people are figured into the wait times in the US?

HERE you will get the scoop. You who have no insurance could benefit.....those of you who presently do have insurance will most likely not benefit, and those of you who have pretty damn good insurance will likely loose.

Pay particular attention to the bottom of the article......"you can keep your insurance if you want"......spin again.

"Obtuse" is a term that also describes Hank.

I can respect Hank's leaning conservative. There's some rational thought going on there. On health care he's totally fvked however. The system is broken for everyone who is not super-rich nor a member of Congress or has similar entitlements.

I'm thinking I'm not gonna' be real excited by what comes out of Congress what with the health care system lobbyists spending over a million bucks a day to influence our best Congress that money can by. Hank, if your credibility means anything in this discussion, what's your alternative, and why is it better than 3200, and how would your superior alternative get adopted in this fvkass partisan climate? I want to find out if you're just like most of the GOP that figures the only goal is to be anti-Obama, even if their alternatives lead to a dead end.

Sg

Hank, I don't think anyone disputes that there is wait times in Canada and there is a difference in care by Province. Alberta probably has the best system. My wife's uncle is a Paramedic on B.C. Ambulance. He says the care is excellent, but of course as all Paramedics know, some hospitals are better at treating certain things then others, same down here. By comparison, your chances of surviving a heart attack in Seattle/King County isn't bad when you compare it to about zero in Detroit and New York, and only a little better in L.A.

When I was visiting my family in Alberta last week, my 9 yoa Grandson developed what appeared to be an infection in his elbow. Mom took him to the Doctor, they wanted to put him in the hospital right away, however, mom talked the Doctor into a 24 hour wait to see if the antibiotics worked at home. The Doctor reluctantly agreed. My Grandson got better and is doing great now.

Three and a half years ago I had some pain in the bottom of my chest. It got worse and I went to the emergency room. After a number of hours in the ER I was released and sent home, with the advise to go see my cardiologist, which I did. The Cardiologist set me up with a nuclear stress test a couple of weeks later. That test showed a blockage. It was another week and a half before I had an Angiogram, then almost two weeks before I had the stent. Nothing wrong with the wait time, I wasn't an emergency. But, let me tell you, after the nuclear stress test I wanted the angiogram and treatment to happen right away. I felt like a walking dead man.

Somehow people feel that having quick access to diagnostic equipment like MRIs etc., is a measure of how good a system is. It isn't, it's expensive and no one measures the outcomes. It is not unlike the 911 system in this country. Most people believe that dialing 911 and getting a cop to the scene quick has a positive impact on crime. Very untrue, but yet we continue to believe it and pay for a very expensive system where the only outcomes that are usually measured are response time. Response time has very little to do with solving a crime and catching a suspect.

Your right about the variables, but obviously down in Frisco you don't get the Canadian news on what is going on with the lower mainland in B.C., there is a full on gang war happening. Regardless, the leading cause of death in this country is Heart Disease and Cancer, not homicide and homicide rates have dropped a lot since the 90s. The chance for most Americans of dying due to homicide is extremely low, unless you are unfortunate enough to be born into the hood in Oakland.

For every sad story in Canada, you would have no problem finding one to match it down here. Both systems have their problems, but no one is denied medical treatment in Canada and Canadians live longer lives then we do. Just saying, that alone makes it worth taking a look at.

It's my belief that the system will be designed to eventually force all into the public option.

"BTW docspud you're a dentist? Dental coverage is what $1,500.00 per year. So how is it that you really have ANY experience with ins? You don't, other than your malpractice fiasco. So go ahead & talk like an expert, what a joke, you haven't got a clue. Guess What? Probably most Americans can pay your bill -lol. However, we can't pay the REAL medical bills when hospitalized. Get over yourself"

I run a surgical practice. Not drill and fill dumb fu ck. IV sedation, surg, the bigger stuff no one else wants to deal with. Referral only. Hate to put that much out but you are such a dipsh it. You have no idea what malpractice is for my type of office. It aint 1500 either. You are the least useful in this conversation because you add nothing. KK I am starting to like because he actually makes me look at it from another view. You.......well lets just say I see why Bigstick kicks you around like a chump. Jack a s s.

You STILL just aren't gettin' it Hank!

Speaking for myself... I could probably be convinced by a cogent argument from the conservative side... and I know that there are a few others that probably could be too.

Since you're one of the the only conservatives here with the cognitive capacity to concoct one... how's about you do... instead of CONTINUOUSLY obfuscating the debate with red herrings, straw men, wingnut talking points and personal observations of Nancy Pelosi?

Screw the French! Sell me on a plan that's both realistic and will be good for ALL of AMERICA Hank!

You can do it... can'tcha?

I agree with the "just fukem" tactic...they've shown that they don't care one bit about America or Americans, just about not letting Obama get anything done for their own selfish and power-hungry reasons...

That's why so many of them got kicked out of office, and many of the rest will follow...

Fish on...

Todd

The Dems don't need the Repubs anyway, I think the Dems are just paying lip service to bipartisanship, they don't really care one way or the other. The problem is that they cannot get all their own on the same page. If the Dems put together a good pan that actually works for most of America then they will be rewarded, if it ends up being a mess then they will loose seats and quite a few will become lobbiests.

"I agree with the "just fukem" tactic...they've shown that they don't care one bit about America or Americans, just about not letting Obama get anything done for their own selfish and power-hungry reasons..."

I agree too, however you could insert "Bush" for "Obama" and it would reflect a lot of Congress's attitude the last 2 years of his term. I remember Bush floating an idea about SS and the Dems ran howling all the way to the town hall meetings and didn't want to do anything because it would have given Bush a "win" and shown some bi partianship. It defintely works both ways in DC.

My point was that BOTH sides pay lip service to bi-partisanship, neither really care about it unless they need a few cross overs to get something done. It wasn't to revisit the SS issue, I merely used it as an example. Bush wouldn't have tried to do the bi-partisan thing if the Repubs had the numbers at that time either. The Dems cannot get their own people in agreement so it is more newsworthy to blame the minority party. Get your own people in line and there shouldn't be any problems.

Put together a solid product and get it passed. Then we will see if your party can really do something productive for America. If you can great, personally I hope they do, if not there is a lot of bucks in lobbying.

Here's a brief synopsis of 3200 in layman's terms....everyone still lovin' it? Remember this is being laid out for the 40 million uninsured. You all must believe that those 40 million really would like to buy some insurance...right?

Some initial findings:


A tax surcharge would be imposed on individuals who earn more than $350,000.00. The surcharge would start at 1% and would increase up to 5.4% for those who have a modified adjusted gross income that exceeds $1 million.


A non-compliance tax would be imposed on individuals who do not acquire an "acceptable health insurance policy" (as determined by a government committee) for themselves and their families. This proposed non-compliance tax would be 2.5% of adjusted gross income, which would be effective after December 31, 2012. (Certain persons, including nonresident aliens, would be exempted from individual taxes.)


A non-compliance tax would be imposed on employers who do not provide their employees health care coverage which meets government-specified minimum coverage requirements. This noncompliance tax would equal 8% of the gross wages; it would be in addition to the social security tax and there would be no wage base limitation. (The Ways and Means Committee proposes an exception for small businesses that have an employee payroll of less than $400,000.00.) Coverage requirements would be mandated by a government committee, headed by a Health Commissioner who would be appointed by the president.


The Commissioner would be empowered to establish qualified health benefits plan standards, establish and operate a Health Insurance Exchange and conduct compliance audits at random. (The person or entity being audited would be required to cover the Commissioner's expenses.) The Commissioner also would be free to collect data for purposes of carrying out his or her duties.


Individual states could establish health exchanges of their own, subject to providing "timely and reasonable notice to the Commissioner." Such exchanges could be terminated at the Commissioner's discretion.


A public health insurance option would be established under the auspices of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary would collect "such data as may be required" to establish premiums and "to reduce racial, ethnic, and other disparities in health and health care." Premiums would be geographically adjusted and would comply with the premium rules established by the afore-mentioned Commissioner.


The Treasury would appropriate "such sums as necessary" to cover the first 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.


A physician or health care practitioner who agrees to participate in both Medicare and the public health insurance option would receive payments which are 5% greater than the rates paid to nonparticipating practitioners.


Vicki Rolens, managing director of FACT, says, "HR 3200 as drafted may or may not be passed into law. We just feel that people are entitled to know what the bill contains and that they should make their feelings known to their congressmen. The matter is far too important to be treated in a haphazard fashion by our elected officials, but without a strong public voice there is always a danger of that happening."


Citizens can find out how to reach their respective lawmakers by [url=visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml][url=visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml][url=visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml]visitinghttp://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml[/url][/url][/url]


This news release is issued as a service of the Federation of American Consumers and Travelers (FACT). FACT was formed under the not-for-profit corporation laws of the District of Columbia in 1984, and currently serves more than 1 million consumers nationwide. Additional information on FACT may be found in the Encyclopedia of Associations, and by visiting the association's Web site http://www.usafact.org). Informative, unbiased news bulletins are regularly disseminated by FACT to help its members remain current on matters which might seriously impact their lives. In addition to publishing consumer-related reports, the association provides more than 30 benefits for its members, ranging from medical insurance and dental discounts to prescription drug savings, scholarships and consumer information.


FACT's administrative office is located at 318 Hillsboro Avenue, Edwardsville, IL 62025.


Contact:

Vicki Rolens
1-800-USA-FACT
cservice@usafact.org

If the young people ever stop for a moment and figure out that this is just one more rock on their back, then perhaps they'll get pissed off enough to do something. President Printmore's magical fixes are burying them in a debt like never before......with no indication of slowing down. I have no idea how the younger generation will be able to chase their own dreams if they are locked in indentured servitude by this unending government spending spree.

What baffles me is why Mr. Roarke and the troup of "Tatoo"s of Fantasy Island are pushing so hard. A misguided loyalty for sure, IMO.

Keep in mind that I probably have more to gain than most as retirement is just a short time away, at which time I would really like to have cheap insurance. But haven't we already indebted future generations enough? This whole mess says, "Fvck 'em" alright.....to our kids.