Let's be honest about the GOP position on health care....

[OrangeEmpire]

LG you ought to be super happy, the taxpayer gets to fit the bill so you can keep your employees.

Long live freedom!

 

[lawgator1]

LG you ought to be super happy, the taxpayer gets to fit the bill so you can keep your employees.

Long live freedom!

From what I read, this will have no effect on me or my employees. We will continue to buy insurance for them, as it goes up we will be splitting those costs with them.

 

[utvolpj]

why would it ever go up?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Might want to read further.

 

[lawgator1]

I am beginning to see now what the concern is for some of the conservatives here -- you don't like the notion that the rest of us will be picking up the tab for the medical care of the underemployed and those otherwise on the margins.

But there is a false premis in your argument, which is that if we do not all share the cost of this then those people will not get health care, anyway. They will. By law. And it will just be more expensive if its done in an emergent or unmanaged way.

Your real argument is not with how we pay for it -- its whether we pay for it at all.

So, am I right? You want to change the systems so that those who cannot afford medical care (or insurance leading up to it) are turned away to die? I mean, that's a perfectly valid point of view. Some people do not like food stamps or other such programs and would be okay with simply letting people starve to death if they could not pay for food.

As I say, I understand the argument on that and its perfectly logical from some points of view. But, if that is your view, then you should be honest about that and not sugar coat it by saying that we are suddenly lurching towards socialism when, in reality, under your definition we are already there and its just a question of how to pay for it.

 

[droski]

Did you happen to read the correction at the bottom of the story you linked to?


Correction: April 6, 2009
An article in the special Retirement section on Thursday about problems consumers have finding doctors who accept Medicare misstated the results of a survey published in 2008 by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress. The panel found that 29 percent of beneficiaries who were looking for a new primary care physician had problems finding one who accepted Medicare; the panel did not find that 29 percent of all beneficiaries had problems finding a primary care doctor or a specialist who accepted Medicare.


From what I am reading, about 75 % of all doctors accept Medicare. There are pockets of problems, certainly, such as at the one hospital cited in your article, and within certain specialties. There also seems to be an issue in Texas, for some reason. But if you are correct and the doctors are taking what the market will bear, i.e. if Medicare is a significant payor in the region, then it stands to reason that broadening their coverage will increase the doctors who accept it.

I'm failing to see how this is relavant:

The panel found that 29 percent of beneficiaries who were looking for a new primary care physician had problems finding one who accepted Medicare; the panel did not find that 29 percent of all beneficiaries had problems finding a primary care doctor or a specialist who accepted Medicare

It stands to reason that more and more talented people will become bankers or god forbid lawyers rather than doctors since it's becoming increasingly harder to make a living.

 

[utvolpj]

So, am I right? You want to change the systems so that those who cannot afford medical care (or insurance leading up to it) are turned away to die? I mean, that's a perfectly valid point of view. Some people do not like food stamps or other such programs and would be okay with simply letting people starve to death if they could not pay for food.

bravo LG, you just summed it all up right there. I don't know how you figured it out

 

[CountVolcula]

I am beginning to see now what the concern is for some of the conservatives here -- you don't like the notion that the rest of us will be picking up the tab for the medical care of the underemployed and those otherwise on the margins.

But there is a false premis in your argument, which is that if we do not all share the cost of this then those people will not get health care, anyway. They will. By law. And it will just be more expensive if its done in an emergent or unmanaged way.

Your real argument is not with how we pay for it -- its whether we pay for it at all.

So, am I right? You want to change the systems so that those who cannot afford medical care (or insurance leading up to it) are turned away to die? I mean, that's a perfectly valid point of view. Some people do not like food stamps or other such programs and would be okay with simply letting people starve to death if they could not pay for food.

As I say, I understand the argument on that and its perfectly logical from some points of view. But, if that is your view, then you should be honest about that and not sugar coat it by saying that we are suddenly lurching towards socialism when, in reality, under your definition we are already there and its just a question of how to pay for it.

Social Darwinism all the way!! Survival of the fittest. Makes for a better gene pool.

 

[droski]

I am beginning to see now what the concern is for some of the conservatives here -- you don't like the notion that the rest of us will be picking up the tab for the medical care of the underemployed and those otherwise on the margins.

But there is a false premis in your argument, which is that if we do not all share the cost of this then those people will not get health care, anyway. .

it's still a pain for them to get healthcare and some whose incomes are high enough even have to pay for it out of thier own pocket. give em unlimited healthcare for free and easy access and don't tell me they wont consume far more. there is absolutely zero valid argument that this thing will save money.

 

[T-TownVol]

Did you happen to read the correction at the bottom of the story you linked to?


Correction: April 6, 2009
An article in the special Retirement section on Thursday about problems consumers have finding doctors who accept Medicare misstated the results of a survey published in 2008 by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress. The panel found that 29 percent of beneficiaries who were looking for a new primary care physician had problems finding one who accepted Medicare; the panel did not find that 29 percent of all beneficiaries had problems finding a primary care doctor or a specialist who accepted Medicare.


From what I am reading, about 75 % of all doctors accept Medicare. There are pockets of problems, certainly, such as at the one hospital cited in your article, and within certain specialties. There also seems to be an issue in Texas, for some reason. But if you are correct and the doctors are taking what the market will bear, i.e. if Medicare is a significant payor in the region, then it stands to reason that broadening their coverage will increase the doctors who accept it.

That number is BS. When we were doing foster care, we would be given a Medicaid card for each child. We would go on the web site and see dozens of doctors listed as accepting Medicaid. They did NOT.
Most would say that they had tried to get their name off the list and the government refused. The were told that if they had accepted it at any point, they would be left on the list as accepting it now.
What is your next excuse?

 

[T-TownVol]

I am beginning to see now what the concern is for some of the conservatives here -- you don't like the notion that the rest of us will be picking up the tab for the medical care of the underemployed and those otherwise on the margins.

But there is a false premis in your argument, which is that if we do not all share the cost of this then those people will not get health care, anyway. They will. By law. And it will just be more expensive if its done in an emergent or unmanaged way.

Your real argument is not with how we pay for it -- its whether we pay for it at all.

So, am I right? You want to change the systems so that those who cannot afford medical care (or insurance leading up to it) are turned away to die? I mean, that's a perfectly valid point of view. Some people do not like food stamps or other such programs and would be okay with simply letting people starve to death if they could not pay for food.

As I say, I understand the argument on that and its perfectly logical from some points of view. But, if that is your view, then you should be honest about that and not sugar coat it by saying that we are suddenly lurching towards socialism when, in reality, under your definition we are already there and its just a question of how to pay for it.

This is the biggest pile of shat you have spewed yet.

 

[volinbham]

I always take such announcements with a grain of salt because of a) the accounting gimmickry by which they claim a loss on Medicare. Uusually means they are calling significant reimbursement angle something else; and b) you will see such proclamations from time to time as these facilities are negotiating something, like a taxing district or what have you, in order to gin up support.

Let's see if I have this right:

1. You know what Tea Partiers are "really thinking"
2. You know what Republicans are "really thinking"
3. You know what Mayo Clinic is "really thinking"

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

LG=L Ron Hubbard

 

[lawgator1]

Let's see if I have this right:

1. You know what Tea Partiers are "really thinking"

They aren't thinking at all, just reacting (as instructed by their handlers, like Beck.

2. You know what Republicans are "really thinking"

Conservatives are not willing to say what they really think, which is the social Darwisim discussion above. You won't see them articulate that on tv. GOP members are just thinking about their own personal power.


3. You know what Mayo Clinic is "really thinking"

I'm not as sure about them, except that they are making more than their accounting would suggest. There's nothing wrong with making money. But when you put out false figures so as to scare people into supporting a system that lines your pockets, yeah, I've a problem with that.

All I want is some honesty here.

If your argument against the bill is really that you resist the notion of health care as an entitlement, then say so, but recognize that what you mean is that people who cannot afford medical care simply die.

If your argument is that the industry isn't making any money as is, I beg to differ, and reject out of hand the numbers they give you.

If your argument is that government cannot do this more efficiently, I ask you what your alternative is, since nothing proposed by the industry so far has made any difference.

 

[droski]

"If your argument is that the industry isn't making any money as is, I beg to differ, and reject out of hand the numbers they give you."

this is when you go to the tinfoil hat category.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

All I want is some honesty here.

If your argument against the bill is really that you resist the notion of health care as an entitlement, then say so, but recognize that what you mean is that people who cannot afford medical care simply die.

If your argument is that the industry isn't making any money as is, I beg to differ, and reject out of hand the numbers they give you.

If your argument is that government cannot do this more efficiently, I ask you what your alternative is, since nothing proposed by the industry so far has made any difference.

is what you constantly overlook is the innovation of the private sector. The private companies will adapt, the government cannot, and will not. Prime example, the USPS, the private sector is kicking the crap out of the them in every way. All this will be is a tax burden for those that have jobs, and more free crap for those who already are on the government bankroll

 

[T-TownVol]

All I want is some honesty here.

If your argument is that government cannot do this more efficiently, I ask you what your alternative is, since nothing proposed by the industry so far has made any difference.

The "industry" is hand cuffed by the regulations put on it by government.
Can't sell across state lines
Manditory coverages
No tort reform

Get government out of the way and the free market will take care of the problems.

 

[lawgator1]

Here is an outstanding article on the Republican state of affairs, written by a Republican commentator. How GOP can rebound from its 'Waterloo' - CNN.com


The critical portion:

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes, it mobilizes supporters -- but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Now the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.

Or almost all. The vitriolic talking heads on conservative talk radio and shock TV have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination.

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say -- but what is equally true -- is that he also wants Republicans to fail.

If Republicans succeed -- if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office -- Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less and hear fewer ads for Sleep Number beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished.

For the cause they purport to represent, however, the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own.

LOL @ the Sleep Number beds line.

 

[KB5252]

All I want is some honesty here.

If your argument against the bill is really that you resist the notion of health care as an entitlement, then say so, but recognize that what you mean is that people who cannot afford medical care simply die.
If you add people to this entitlement and make care more available it will be further abused and abuse is already a problem as it stands now. How will this not cost us in more taxes down the road?
If your argument is that the industry isn't making any money as is, I beg to differ, and reject out of hand the numbers they give you.
Why, what inside info do you have that can refute the numbers given? Why do you refute those numbers?
If your argument is that government cannot do this more efficiently, I ask you what your alternative is, since nothing proposed by the industry so far has made any difference.

Government has a part to play in the reform, there's no doubt. Especially considering government and their unintended consequences helped to create the problem to begin with. Why would I trust them to get this right when A) they are a part of the problem to begin with and B) they've given me every reason to believe they will screw it up and bloat it while increasing my taxes?

 

[volinbham]

All I want is some honesty here.

Seriously? You posted that you think opposition is based on preferring people die rather than having to pay for someone else's HC.

That is as dishonest as it comes.

If your argument against the bill is really that you resist the notion of health care as an entitlement, then say so, but recognize that what you mean is that people who cannot afford medical care simply die.

Unbelievable. Again, why bother answering you. You truly understand nothing about why this bill is opposed. What's worse, you claim you know exactly why then post BS like this. Finally, you wrap it up in a plea for honesty.

If your argument is that the industry isn't making any money as is, I beg to differ, and reject out of hand the numbers they give you.

No one said that. I posted an article where Mayo said they lost a substantial amount of money on Medicare patients (not overall). You turn around and say they are 1) lying and 2) not serious when they say they will drop Medicare patients. You have NO FACTS to support these claims yet throw them out as fact and return to the plea for honesty.

If your argument is that government cannot do this more efficiently, I ask you what your alternative is, since nothing proposed by the industry so far has made any difference.

1. Change of regulations. This bill wants to maintain the private insurance industry (so the supporters claim). Taking that as a starting point we can tighten some regulation (pre-existing, caps, dropping coverage) while loosening others (mandated coverage minimums, interstate competition, portability)

2. Expand HSAs. Along with a broader set of choices for customers (see loosening of regs) incentivize customers to use the HC they need by seeing the true price. You want HC costs to come down? You have to change utilization. This bill will increase utilization.

3. Use tax credits/subsidies to help individuals buy insurance. The goal of 2 and 3 is to divorce HC coverage from employment.

4. Use existing safety net systems (e.g. county clinics, Medicaid, SCHIP) to extend coverage to those who cannot purchase the lower price plans resulting from 1, 2 and 3.

5. Tort reform, fraud reduction. Along with #2 and #3 we can take action to lower actual HC costs based on individual choice not government panels.

What's not in this?

Mandated insurance
Requiring all to have the "same" insurance
Continued isolation from true price of HC
Massive entitlement growth
Robbing of one entitlement (Medicare) to pay for the new one.
One more group (government panels) between doctors and patients

 

[volinbham]

Here is an outstanding article on the Republican state of affairs, written by a Republican commentator. How GOP can rebound from its 'Waterloo' - CNN.com


The critical portion:

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes, it mobilizes supporters -- but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Now the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.

Or almost all. The vitriolic talking heads on conservative talk radio and shock TV have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination.

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say -- but what is equally true -- is that he also wants Republicans to fail.

If Republicans succeed -- if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office -- Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less and hear fewer ads for Sleep Number beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished.

For the cause they purport to represent, however, the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own.

LOL @ the Sleep Number beds line.

You realize that the author is talking about conservative commentators and not the R party right?

He's not condemning the R opposition to this bill.

 

[T-TownVol]

You realize that the author is talking about conservative commentators and not the R party right?

He's not condemning the R opposition to this bill.

Why let reading comprehension get in the way of a good rant.

 

[lawgator1]

I am seeing a lot of deflecting here. My question now is simple: Do you fundamentally oppose a system of health care insurance and regulation whereby people who are uninsured and cannot afford medical care get it anyway, at the expense of the rest of us?

 

[volinbham]

I am seeing a lot of deflecting here. My question now is simple: Do you fundamentally oppose a system of health care insurance and regulation whereby people who are uninsured and cannot afford medical care get it anyway, at the expense of the rest of us?

did you read my post?

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

I am seeing a lot of deflecting here. My question now is simple: Do you fundamentally oppose a system of health care insurance and regulation whereby people who are uninsured and cannot afford medical care get it anyway, at the expense of the rest of us?

they have to work for it, you cant get something for nothing. I am not gonna pick up the tab of someone who refuses to help themself. If they have the means and lack the desire, then i have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

If they have fallen on hard times and need some help, and are trying harder then the help they are getting, then yes I am for helping those folks out.

If you arent contributing, then you dont have the RIGHT to anything