NCAAbbs

From the WSJ: Link

Quote:By JOHN FUND

President Barack Obama’s health-care sales pitch depends on his ability to obfuscate who is likely to get hurt by reform. At Wednesday’s news conference, for example, he was asked “specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice” he would ask of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises.

He insisted he “won’t reduce Medicare benefits” but instead would “make delivery more efficient.” The most Mr. Obama would concede is that some people will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” That is simply not credible.

While Democrats on Capitol Hill dispute claims that individuals will lose their existing coverage under their reform plans, on other issues many Democrats privately acknowledge some people will indeed get whacked to pay for the new world of government-dominated health care.

Democrats have been brilliant in keeping knowledge about the pain and sacrifice of health reform from the very people who would bear the brunt of them. They’ve done so by convincing health-care industry groups not to run the kind of “Harry and Louise”-style ads that helped sink HillaryCare in 1993.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run ads has been “intense, bordering on extortion.” “Groups were told if they did they’d give up their seat at the table,” says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “What they weren’t told is that they’d be at the table as lunch.”

Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like the existing Senate or House health plans become law:

• Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.

• Small Businesses. Employers who don’t provide coverage will have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.

• Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.

These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan says a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That’s not the way these plans are set up to work. Ray Ramthun, who implemented the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says the regulations are crippling. “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market,” he said in an interview.

• Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back this program—care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.

The program is especially popular with those in badly served urban areas and with those who can’t afford the premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.

These plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature, and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it.

That’s not what others say. In January, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”

The $156 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.

There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are leery of their party’s health-care reform plans. Many are in districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry about the political fallout when these groups realize they will be paying for health-care reform.

They also know that every government entitlement winds up becoming a money pit. In 1965, Sen. Allen Ellender (D., La.) dismissed promises that Medicare would be a modest program to save seniors from bankruptcy. “Let us not be so naïve as to believe that the Medicare program will not be increased from year to year to the point that the government will have to impose more taxes on the little man or else take the necessary money out of the Treasury,” he told colleagues.

Ellender was right, and his warning is even more relevant in our era of skyrocketing deficits and Medicare costs. The only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if the costs they impose on vulnerable parts of the population continue to be hidden.

Mr. Fund is a WSJ.com columnist.

The liberals/marxists in Congress and the White House do not care one bit about the actual healthcare of the people. This is all just a huge power grab in order to give them the power to control every single aspect of every individual's life, all in the name of "public health." Just wait and see. It is the exact same premise as the "climate change" bill. Nothing but a way to attempt to skirt the Constitution in order to restrict individual freedoms. One bill will do so in the name of "saving the planet," while the other will do so in the name of "public health." The marxists in charge will be able to claim anything and everything you can think of can be controlled and regulated, because it will affect "the climate" or "public health."

I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom...

I'm a Republican, and TRUST ME, I don't want anything whatsoever to do with your bedroom.

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

ah, the 'blame America first' crowd weighs in. Do as I say, not as i do.

(07-24-2009 09:12 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom...

I'm a Republican, and TRUST ME, I don't want anything whatsoever to do with your bedroom.

So what would be your stance on removing the ban on "marital aides" in Alabama or decriminalizing marijuana?

(07-24-2009 09:32 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

ah, the 'blame America first' crowd weighs in. Do as I say, not as i do.

I don't even know what that means. Do you ever have anything substantive to contribute to a debate, or is it always 'my way or you're a communist' with you? It's not the 70s anymore.

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

You people are oblivious. Anyone who disagrees with you are nothing but racist homophobes and religious zealots. Guess what- I consider myself a conservative. I don't give a damn about abortion, gay marriage, or legalized marijuana. So don't try to marginalize conservative viewpoints relative to the socialized medicine you so desperately want by dragging up unrelated issues.

(07-24-2009 10:17 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2009 09:12 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom...

I'm a Republican, and TRUST ME, I don't want anything whatsoever to do with your bedroom.

So what would be your stance on removing the ban on "marital aides" in Alabama or decriminalizing marijuana?

My stances are as follows:

On "marital aides"(sic): Eeeew gross!

On Decriminalizing Marijuana: If old hippies want to smoke a bowl in their house or tent or RV then I don't have a problem with it. If they want to encourage children to follow their lead then I've got a problem with it.

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

I don't think Democrats have an ingrained need to control everyone's life, I know they do. All one has to do is look at their legislation and campaign platforms. Please show me someone who is not able to get health care. There is a big difference between not getting health insurance and not getting health care. It is not about not caring for a fellow human being. It is that it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO FORCE ME TO DO SO. The federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do this. This is what charities and other non-profits are for.

And, there is a big difference between limited actual toxic waste and engaging in fearmongering and regulation of a compound (CO2) that is absolutely essential to the life cycle of plants and animals. Clean air and water is completely separate from the "climate change" hysteria. CO2 is not a pollutant and never will be. It is a natural compound that is necessary to the plant and animal life cycle. In order for the planet to truly be green, there must be more CO2 than there is today, as plants thrive on about 1500ppm CO2. Today's levels are about 390ppm CO2. But, there is also a way to limit pollution the air without regulations. It is called the free market. If a company is polluting enough that people do not want to deal with them, then they will change their ways in order to keep business. If the company loses enough business, it will change the way it operates in order to survive. If there is enough outcry from consumers, pollution will be reduced, without government intervention.

As far as regulating the bedroom, I don't have a problem with various contraceptive methods, but I do have a problem with terminating an innocent human life, especially one still in gestation and without any due process of law afforded to it. The founding document of this nation is not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence, which clearly states that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Conception is the beginning stage of the creation of life, and once that life has begun, it has an inalienable right to live. If we are not willing to uphold this basic tenet, then we should tear up the document and others based upon it and start over. There are consequences to your actions, and if you engage in sexual activities, you could get pregnant. At that point, the choice has already been made. You chose to engage in the activity, and you must live with the consequences. I also have a problem with those "certain substances" you to which you alluded. You must mean illicit drugs. There is a reason there are laws regarding what you can put in your body. This is due to the danger to not only yourself but those around you while under the influence of these substances. But these are issues that are not for the federal government. They are to be dealt with on a state basis. If Alabama wants to criminalize marijuana while California legalizes it, then so be it. They each have the power under the 10th Amendment to do so. The federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER IT AT ALL. If Alabama wants to prohibit same-sex marriage while Massachusetts allows it, then they can do so under the 10th Amendment. But, Alabama does not have to recognize it under Full Faith and Credit IF it violates public policy.

In the end, this argument is about the health care bill. If Congress really cared about lowering health insurance costs, then it would require, as a matter of regulating interstate commerce, that health insurance be opened across state borders. If you find a plan that you like in North Dakota, and you live in Kansas, then you should be able to buy that plan. Your car insurance works that way. Geico is not an Alabama corporation, but it covers your car there. The new bill wants to prohibit health savings accounts, which allow an individual or family to pay a low premium on a high deductible insurance plan (basically only catastrophic coverage), and place other money into a plan to help pay the deductible in the event it is needed. Your car insurance works in a similar way. You pay a premium that covers catastrophic events, or accidents. Then you have a deductible for comprehensive and collision events. It does not cover every little thing that comes up. That is how insurance is supposed to work. Health insurance should not pay for every doctor visit, every sore throat or cough. Health insurance should pay for catastrophic events. Your car insurance does not pay for every oil and filter change or tire rotation, so health insurance should not pay for similar preventive maintenance of your body. If health insurance was more like car or home insurance, then it would be extremely affordable, and we wouldnt' be having this discussion.

(07-24-2009 09:32 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

ah, the 'blame America first' crowd weighs in. Do as I say, not as i do.

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I don't even know what that means. Do you ever have anything substantive to contribute to a debate...? It's not the 70s anymore.

I think I should be asking you this question.

(07-24-2009 01:02 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

I don't think Democrats have an ingrained need to control everyone's life, I know they do. All one has to do is look at their legislation and campaign platforms. Please show me someone who is not able to get health care. There is a big difference between not getting health insurance and not getting health care. It is not about not caring for a fellow human being. It is that it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO FORCE ME TO DO SO. The federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do this. This is what charities and other non-profits are for.

And, there is a big difference between limited actual toxic waste and engaging in fearmongering and regulation of a compound (CO2) that is absolutely essential to the life cycle of plants and animals. Clean air and water is completely separate from the "climate change" hysteria. CO2 is not a pollutant and never will be. It is a natural compound that is necessary to the plant and animal life cycle. In order for the planet to truly be green, there must be more CO2 than there is today, as plants thrive on about 1500ppm CO2. Today's levels are about 390ppm CO2. But, there is also a way to limit pollution the air without regulations. It is called the free market. If a company is polluting enough that people do not want to deal with them, then they will change their ways in order to keep business. If the company loses enough business, it will change the way it operates in order to survive. If there is enough outcry from consumers, pollution will be reduced, without government intervention.

As far as regulating the bedroom, I don't have a problem with various contraceptive methods, but I do have a problem with terminating an innocent human life, especially one still in gestation and without any due process of law afforded to it. The founding document of this nation is not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence, which clearly states that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Conception is the beginning stage of the creation of life, and once that life has begun, it has an inalienable right to live. If we are not willing to uphold this basic tenet, then we should tear up the document and others based upon it and start over. There are consequences to your actions, and if you engage in sexual activities, you could get pregnant. At that point, the choice has already been made. You chose to engage in the activity, and you must live with the consequences. I also have a problem with those "certain substances" you to which you alluded. You must mean illicit drugs. There is a reason there are laws regarding what you can put in your body. This is due to the danger to not only yourself but those around you while under the influence of these substances. But these are issues that are not for the federal government. They are to be dealt with on a state basis. If Alabama wants to criminalize marijuana while California legalizes it, then so be it. They each have the power under the 10th Amendment to do so. The federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER IT AT ALL. If Alabama wants to prohibit same-sex marriage while Massachusetts allows it, then they can do so under the 10th Amendment. But, Alabama does not have to recognize it under Full Faith and Credit IF it violates public policy.

In the end, this argument is about the health care bill. If Congress really cared about lowering health insurance costs, then it would require, as a matter of regulating interstate commerce, that health insurance be opened across state borders. If you find a plan that you like in North Dakota, and you live in Kansas, then you should be able to buy that plan. Your car insurance works that way. Geico is not an Alabama corporation, but it covers your car there. The new bill wants to prohibit health savings accounts, which allow an individual or family to pay a low premium on a high deductible insurance plan (basically only catastrophic coverage), and place other money into a plan to help pay the deductible in the event it is needed. Your car insurance works in a similar way. You pay a premium that covers catastrophic events, or accidents. Then you have a deductible for comprehensive and collision events. It does not cover every little thing that comes up. That is how insurance is supposed to work. Health insurance should not pay for every doctor visit, every sore throat or cough. Health insurance should pay for catastrophic events. Your car insurance does not pay for every oil and filter change or tire rotation, so health insurance should not pay for similar preventive maintenance of your body. If health insurance was more like car or home insurance, then it would be extremely affordable, and we wouldnt' be having this discussion.

(07-24-2009 08:55 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I really love the right's righteousness about the constitution and individual liberties and freedoms and then turns around and espouses so-called family values laws that regulate what people do in their bedroom or put into their bodies.

I don't know why you think that Democrats have some ingrained need to "control everyone's life". It has nothing to do with simply having control over stuff and has everything to do with being a decent human being that cares for his fellow man. I'm sure if there was some way to guarantee that everyone had health coverage without putting in place any regulations or if there was some way to not poison the air we breath without having to put in any regulations, Democrats would jump on it. Republicans love to control people just as much as anyone else. They want to be in your bedroom, in your body, in your mind..and that's all ok by conservatives as long as you stay out of their wallet. That's a pretty pathetic attitude to hold, that money is the most important thing in the world and damn your fellow man.

I wonder what its like to live in your naive utopia. Everyone has health coverage, trust me. I'd say a good 50% of my patients have zero health insurance, yet they still get treated, so your "caring for fellow man" argument is moot.

(07-24-2009 01:02 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]In the end, this argument is about the health care bill. If Congress really cared about lowering health insurance costs, then it would require, as a matter of regulating interstate commerce, that health insurance be opened across state borders. If you find a plan that you like in North Dakota, and you live in Kansas, then you should be able to buy that plan. Your car insurance works that way. Geico is not an Alabama corporation, but it covers your car there. The new bill wants to prohibit health savings accounts, which allow an individual or family to pay a low premium on a high deductible insurance plan (basically only catastrophic coverage), and place other money into a plan to help pay the deductible in the event it is needed. Your car insurance works in a similar way. You pay a premium that covers catastrophic events, or accidents. Then you have a deductible for comprehensive and collision events. It does not cover every little thing that comes up. That is how insurance is supposed to work. Health insurance should not pay for every doctor visit, every sore throat or cough. Health insurance should pay for catastrophic events. Your car insurance does not pay for every oil and filter change or tire rotation, so health insurance should not pay for similar preventive maintenance of your body. If health insurance was more like car or home insurance, then it would be extremely affordable, and we wouldnt' be having this discussion.

Just one point, car insurance is state based, Geico has to be licensed in AL to write policies for AL drivers, they are just licensed and sell in all states, but they have to file with each state to do so. I do agree that health insurance should be more like car insurance and more market driven.

My credentials before posting my solution, I worked as a tax accountant for doctors for 4 years and have worked in accounting for 6 years for 2 different insurance companies.

I think the best solution would be to lower the floor on medical expense deductions for itemized deductions to start with. Therefore, if you have a job, and have to pay for a doctor visit, you can take it as an itemized deduction. Which gives tax benefits and therefore money to the people who have jobs (you can't take a deduction against no income!). The second part would be to disallow pre tax insurance premium deductions, which would increase the tax base lost on the itemized deductions and force health insurance and jobs to separate. Why would you pay a high premium through your company, when you can get a lower premium through a national or state wide insurance carrier with no tax consquence? Those 2 things would allow people to shop for their insurance, get high deductible/catastrophic coverage and would eventually lower health costs, as doctors lose/spend a ton of money in insurance filing and "adjustments". Just my thoughts. The national insurance plan that is being proposed is horrid, for doctors, the wealthy, the young, and more than likely everyone else eventually. Regardless of their desire to help people, doctors work their best, when they know they will get paid more for doing it. With this socialistic plan, doctors will have little to no incentive to work their hardest, as they will be limited in what they can make....

(07-24-2009 10:17 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]So what would be your stance on removing the ban on "marital aides" in Alabama or decriminalizing marijuana?

As someone who generally votes in a more conservative manner (though not always) I support both as long as the novelties don't wind up in Wal-Mart (no way I'm going to try and explain that to a 3 year old) and marijuana is held to the same standards as alcohol for driving and public smoking is not allowed (to prevent children or other people from getting the second hand high as they walk to school or get in the car to drive).

From what I have heard from the health care industries, the President and the Congress, the private for profit insurance companies are going to remain in control of all hospitals, doctors and their patients under ALL plans now being considered. The only disagreement so far is the role of government in helping the insurance companies cover more Americans. The companies remain in control of all procedures, medications and other health care options through their control of what they will pay for.

Last year my wife's doctor prescribed a particular medicine he wanted her to take. She took the prescription to CVS to be filled. When we went back to pick it up we were told that the insurance company refused to pay for the medicine since my wife had not exhausted all generic or OTC alternatives to the prescribed medicine so we could not get it unless we paid full price for it. The doctor's call to the insurance company fell upon deaf ears. THAT is the real control of American medicine, and nothing in any bills now being considered changes the way it works now.

have your hearing checked, then educate yourself.
as usual, bho's rhetoric
[as well as the remainder of the social...., ummm,....radical leftists'] doesn't mesh with reality.

FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN (AP)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...QD99JSFK00

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.

Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.

A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:

OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.

Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.

It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.

He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."

He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."

___

OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

___

OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."

___

OBAMA: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

THE FACTS: The facts are in dispute between black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the white police sergeant who arrested him at his Cambridge, Mass., home when officers went there to investigate a reported break-in. But this much is clear: Gates wasn't arrested for being in his own home, as Obama implies, but for allegedly being belligerent when the sergeant demanded his identification. The president did mention that the professor was charged with disorderly conduct. Charges were dropped.

___

OBAMA: "If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."

THE FACTS: Obama's numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president's budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

another rebuttal to bho's false claims. This time, it's from the Mayo Clinic.
all emphasis is mine

Mayo Clinic’s reaction to House Tri-Committee bill
http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2...ttee-bill/

Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither.
The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.

and yet, another
all emphasis is mine, again.

Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs
CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending

By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 17, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02242.html

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

Elmendorf's blunt language startled lawmakers racing to meet Obama's deadline for approving a bill by the August break. The CBO is the official arbiter of the cost of legislation. Fiscal conservatives in the House said Elmendorf's testimony would galvanize the growing number of Democrats agitating for changes in the more than $1.2 trillion House bill, which aims to cover 97 percent of Americans by 2015.

A lot of Democrats want to see more savings, said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who is leading an effort to amend the bill before next week's vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. "There's no way they can pass this bill on the House floor. Not even close."

Republicans also seized on Elmendorf's remarks, with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) saying they prove "that one of the Democrats' chief talking points is pure fiction." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Elmendorf's testimony should serve as a "wake-up call" to Obama and Democratic leaders to heed requests from lawmakers in both parties to slow down the process.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she delivered that message directly to Obama at the White House yesterday, and strongly urged him to give up his August deadline so bipartisan negotiators in the Senate Finance Committee can craft a new reform plan that does more to control costs.

"I think it would be prudent for the president to be patient," said Snowe, whom Obama is courting aggressively. Bipartisan approval of a finance bill "can provide huge impetus for the success of this legislation and achieving broader support as it goes through the legislative process."

Talks in the Senate broke late yesterday, with plans to resume next week. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said the group is considering about a dozen options to cover the estimated $1 trillion cost of its package, including reductions in Medicare spending and additional tax increases.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), whose support could compel numerous GOP senators to take a serious look at the package, said he is "hoping" to embrace the final product. Otherwise, he said, "I wouldn't be at the table." After Elmendorf's testimony, Grassley said Senate negotiators are determined to "overcome the shortcomings" of the House proposal.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), also has taken a leading role in the Finance Committee negotiations. Yesterday, when Elmendorf appeared before Conrad's committee to testify about the nation's long-term budget problems, Conrad focused his questions on the House and Senate committee measures, which were drafted without Republican input.

"I'm going to really put you on the spot," Conrad said. "From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"

Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall.

Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy" that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages.

Key senators, including Conrad, have been pressing to tax employer-provided benefits, but Senate leaders last week objected, saying that the idea, which Obama opposed on the campaign trail, does not have enough support to win passage. Yesterday, Baucus said White House opposition had hindered acceptance of the tax, which critics said would target police and firefighters who receive generous benefits packages.

Grassley said he urged Obama earlier this week to reconsider the tax, which the CBO has repeatedly identified as one of the best tools available for driving down long-term federal health spending. Obama said he could not do that, Grassley recalled. "Does he really want to bend the cost curve? He ought to be out in front on this issue and endorse it," he said.

The benefits tax is also hugely unpopular in the House, which has instead proposed a surtax of as much as 5.4 percent on income exceeding $350,000 a year to pay for health reform. "You're not going to get a tax on health benefits," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she welcomes other efforts to improve the bill, including demands for additional savings.

"Can there be more? I think so," Pelosi said. "And that is what the legislative process is about. You don't write the whole bill, introduce it and then go to the floor. This is the time now for an open process of bipartisan review of the bill in the committees."

Meanwhile, a growing number of physician groups are also objecting to the House package. Although the chief executive of the American Medical Association pledged yesterday to "help build support" for the legislation, as many as 20 state medical societies have drafted a letter to congressional leaders vowing to fight creation of a government-sponsored health insurance program that could compete with private firms.

Staff writer Ceci Connolly contributed to this report.

DAM#, here's another. And yes, it IS dam#ing.
emphasis...........well of course, mine.

It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...8165656854


Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

© Copyright 2009 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.

(07-25-2009 04:01 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]another rebuttal to bho's false claims. This time, it's from the Mayo Clinic.
all emphasis is mine

Mayo Clinic’s reaction to House Tri-Committee bill
http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2...ttee-bill/

Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither.
The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.

I heard an interview with either the CEO or the chief medical officer of the mayo clinic on NPR and they said that the only way to truly fix the system is to completely start over, and I know you wouldn't want the government to mandate that. Mayo Clinic has the best healthcare at 25% less cost than the national average because instead of paying their doctors based on the amount of services they are all on salary, so they get paid the same no matter what, and they are incentivized to provide the best care, not the most care. IMO until we have a system like that everything else is just fluff.

(07-25-2009 09:47 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I heard an interview with either the CEO or the chief medical officer of the mayo clinic on NPR and they said that the only way to truly fix the system is to completely start over, and I know you wouldn't want the government to mandate that. Mayo Clinic has the best healthcare at 25% less cost than the national average because instead of paying their doctors based on the amount of services they are all on salary, so they get paid the same no matter what, and they are incentivized to provide the best care, not the most care. IMO until we have a system like that everything else is just fluff.

thanks for validating my position.
the entire premise of a healthcare system in need of overhaul is a canard.
some people will never be able to afford the best. there are many things I can't afford,
including 100% complete [no deductable] health insurance. if I can't afford it for myself/family,
what makes any president or congressman think I should be compelled to contribute to provide
that type of coverage for someone else?
the quickest way to close the affordability gap would be to remove 'government' from the equation.
the physician reimbursement schedule [from medicare/medicaid] hasn't been changed in more than 12 years.
doctors/hospitals need operate at a profit, so where does anyone think those profits will be realized?
yes, the profits must come from increased fees from the private pay arena.

latest opinion poll: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/...re-reform/
Most Americans say they have health care insurance (91 percent), and a large 84 percent majority rates the quality of their insurance as excellent or good. Moreover, more than 8 in 10 (83 percent) rate the quality of the health care they currently receive as excellent or good. And if they were sick or seriously ill, most people say they would rather be in the current privately-run health care system (64 percent) than in a government-run system (19 percent)

the complete poll: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/072309_poll.pdf

Main Entry:ca·nard
Function:noun
Etymology:French, literally, duck; in sense 1, from Middle French vendre des canards à moitié to cheat, literally, to half-sell ducks
Date:1851

1 a: a false or unfounded report or story ; especially : a fabricated report b: a groundless rumor or belief

(07-25-2009 10:58 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-25-2009 09:47 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I heard an interview with either the CEO or the chief medical officer of the mayo clinic on NPR and they said that the only way to truly fix the system is to completely start over, and I know you wouldn't want the government to mandate that. Mayo Clinic has the best healthcare at 25% less cost than the national average because instead of paying their doctors based on the amount of services they are all on salary, so they get paid the same no matter what, and they are incentivized to provide the best care, not the most care. IMO until we have a system like that everything else is just fluff.

thanks for validating my position.
the entire premise of a healthcare system in need of overhaul is a canard.
some people will never be able to afford the best. there are many things I can't afford,
including 100% complete [no deductable] health insurance. if I can't afford it for myself/family,
what makes any president or congressman think I should be compelled to contribute to provide
that type of coverage for someone else?
the quickest way to close the affordability gap would be to remove 'government' from the equation.
the physician reimbursement schedule [from medicare/medicaid] hasn't been changed in more than 12 years.
doctors/hospitals need operate at a profit, so where does anyone think those profits will be realized?
yes, the profits must come from increased fees from the private pay arena.

latest opinion poll: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/...re-reform/
Most Americans say they have health care insurance (91 percent), and a large 84 percent majority rates the quality of their insurance as excellent or good. Moreover, more than 8 in 10 (83 percent) rate the quality of the health care they currently receive as excellent or good. And if they were sick or seriously ill, most people say they would rather be in the current privately-run health care system (64 percent) than in a government-run system (19 percent)

the complete poll: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/072309_poll.pdf

Main Entry:ca·nard
Function:noun
Etymology:French, literally, duck; in sense 1, from Middle French vendre des canards à moitié to cheat, literally, to half-sell ducks
Date:1851

1 a: a false or unfounded report or story ; especially : a fabricated report b: a groundless rumor or belief

Now wait a minute, I didn't say we didn't need reform. The problem with your premise regarding profits is that healthcare costs are already increasing at double the rate of inflation and in 10-15 years will consume like a quarter of our GDP. There is something wrong when the supposed greatest country in the world spends more money on healthcare and gets less out of it than any other industrialized country. IMO healthcare companies should all be non-profit. I think doctors should get fair pay, and when I say fair pay I don't mean slash their salaries. Doctors should get paid a lot of money..but there needs to be a top to bottom reworking of the system. We shouldn't be squeezing huge profits out of the system at the top. We shouldn't be paying people based on how many tests or procedures they can order or do. At work I don't get paid based on how many systems I manage or problems I fix in an IT system, I get a salary. Doctors should be the same way. I'm perfectly ok with a doctor making hundreds of thousands a year or whatever, but I think it should be based on quality of care, not quantity of care.

Look at the non-profit systems: any academic hospital (UAB, the various University of California hospitals, Emory, etc), Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, and compare them with for-profit hospitals such as Triad, HealthSouth, etc. and tell me which ones are more financially viable and which ones are providing better care. The non-profit systems generally are in much less financial trouble and provide much better care and are well regarded (UAB just ranked in the best hospitals survey again this year..where is Brookwood or Trinity?)

I reject your premise 'There is something wrong when the supposed greatest country in the world spends more money on healthcare and gets less out of it than any other industrialized country.'
The best costs more, which is why world leaders [as well as citizens of 'socialized medical care' countries]
come to the States for timely, emergency healthcare.
When 91% of Americans have health insurance, and 83% rate their current healthcare as 'good or excellent', we have no health care crisis. To some, we [may] have an affordability crisis.
But, I can't afford 'full' coverage, either.
Keep in mind, [around] half of our uninsured 'choose' to be uninsured.
Why revamp/destroy the entire system for the other 4-5 %?
It would be less expensive to provide those 4-5% with 'full' PRIVATE coverage, something I can't afford for myself/family.

ANOTHER weekend new dump. I wonder why?
yes, emphasis is mine.

CBO deals new blow to health plan
By CHRIS FRATES | 7/25/09 3:54 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from their party's fiscally conservative Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes. The proposal was heralded as a breakthrough on Tuesday after Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with agreement on giving the independent panel, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending.

Republicans pounced on CBO's analysis as another demonstration that Democratic proposals don't control costs.

"The President said that rising health care costs are an imminent threat to our economy and that any reform must reduce these long-term costs. But CBO has made clear once again that the Democrats' bills in Congress aren't reducing costs and in fact could just make the problem worse," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

Saturday's CBO analysis caps a tough week of blown deadlines, partisan bickering and fierce intra-party fighting among Democrats. On Friday, the tension between the Blue Dogs and Waxman exploded when Waxman threatened to bypass his committee and bring the reform bill straight to the House floor without a vote. The move infuriated Blue Dogs who have used their crucial committee votes to leverage changes to the bill.

But by late Friday, Waxman said their colleagues had pulled the two groups "back from the brink" and back to the negotiating table.

Still, Hoyer said there was little chance that that the House would pass a health reform legislation before Friday when lawmakers are expected to leave Washington for summer recess.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

One thing is for certain when Washington,DC and political action is concerned--the millions the pharmaseutical and insurance companies spend on lobbyists and the law-makers will never be wasted. When a medical bill is finally passed, it will be what those two power-brokers want it to be. Just like Part "D" of Medicare proved, they will remain in unchallenged control of American medicine. The Congressional act will assure that the government will never be in a position to interfere with drug and insurance companies for control of the doctor-patient relationship. THAT is what this debate is really all about. It's not "Will the government get between the doctor and patient", but "Will government get between the insurance companies and the doctor". I'm betting that when the law is passed, the answer will remain "NO!!!"

Do some Asian and European patients come to America for top-flight medical care? YES!! They, like the wealthy Americans, can "elbow their way" to the head of the line at exclusive clinics and get the best doctors and the best care we offer--to those who can afford it. Median income Americans have to wait in line just like Canadians and the others and "make do" with far less care by ordinary physicians. Look at the questions being asked when wealthy patients suddenly get organ transplants while median Americans remain on the waiting lists, often left to wait until they die.

How long are Americans going to buy the medical-business pushed notion that while advanced Asian and European nations can produce better autos, TVs, electronics of all kinds (including more and more of the cutting edge modern medical equipment), and dozens of other things Americans no longer produce, but continue to believe these same people can't run a modern medical establishment for their own people? How long will we buy the notion that when it comes to medical matters, these people are all fools, and Americans are the ONLY ones who can do it right?

socialized medicine/health insurance [as well socialism in economies] doesn't work well ANYWHERE.
instead of mindless blathering, please give me an example of where socialized medicine has given the world anywhere near
the medical innovations the US has given the world.

a little reading: http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spot...hp?id=1696
Science Pioneer Cautions Europe on Declining Medical Innovation


Jurgen Reinhoudt
Medical Progress Today
June 8, 2007
The European Inventor of the Year 2007 Awards recently took place in Munich, Germany. This year, accolades for medical research took center stage as Dr. Marc Feldmann of the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology in London received the Lifetime Achievement Award.


Feldmann was a pioneer in identifying the role of cytokines (proteins that modulate immune system response) in treatment for autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis. His research has helped bring about new treatments for diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. Thanks to Feldman's research, literally millions of people have received treatments that greatly improve their health and quality of life.

Feldmann's reflections on the current state of European R&D are timely and much needed. Feldmann noted that "the UK is fortunate in that it has a large charity sector that supplements government funding for research." Without that support, he said, "his research would not have been possible." Feldmann added that "in Europe we are spending only roughly half as much on research as in the US," and emphasized the need for more spending on R&D, arguing that "the challenge for Europe is to somehow ratchet up contributions to research and make sure...that the inventors have the resources they need to make the contribution to Europe's welfare."

Feldmann is certainly correct that in many areas of research Europe is falling behind the United States. Take the development of new drugs. EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen noted that, "in 1992, 6 out of the 10 top medicines in worldwide sales were European, while in 2002 this figure had fallen to just 2." Moreover, "in 1990, the... pharmaceutical industry still invested 50% more in Europe than in the US... today, the same industry is investing 40% more in the US compared to Europe."

Or take the gap between Europe and the U.S. biotech industries: the U.S. biotechnology industry employs twice as many people as the European biotechnology industry (190,000 compared to 96,500) and earns twice as much revenue as Europe (€41.5 billion in the U.S. vs. €21.5 in Europe.). The extra employees and revenues translate into more research: indeed, U.S. bio–techs spend on average three times as much on R&D, according to EuropaBio.

In the financial realm, American bio–techs have better access to capital than their European competitors. In recent years European biotech companies have had access to only one–fifth of the private equity available to their U.S. rivals, restricting their sources of funding and, consequently, their research. Moreover, U.S. biotechs have access to 10 times as much debt financing as their European counterparts.

Ultimately, lost or constrained innovation impacts public health. Access to new drugs, for instance, is far superior for American consumers than European ones. For cancer patients, access to new drugs is crucial: a report by the Swedish Karolinska Institute, published in the Annals of Oncology, found that "The United States has been the country of first launch for close to half of the oncology drugs brought to the market in the past 11 years." The authors of the report observe that "Nearly half of the observed improvement in the 2–year cancer survival rate between 1992 and 2000 at 50 US cancer centers could be attributed to the use of new cancer drugs," evidence that America's embrace of new medicines translates into saved human lives.

The evidence is unmistakable: Europe's pharmaceutical industry is in the midst of a long and steady decline, and Europe's bio–tech industry is lagging significantly behind its American counterpart. What is also clear—but far more controversial—is that by adopting certain aspects of the American R&D system, Europeans could regain their innovative and competitive edge.

Some of the key ingredients of America's thriving biopharmaceutical sector: a system of free pricing of drugs (almost inconceivable in Europe); great dynamism in the bio–tech sector due to a pool of active venture capital; direct–to–consumer advertising of prescription drugs; flexible labor laws and an entrepreneurial spirit; an active and often symbiotic connection between academic scientists and private industry; and a limited role of the state in the R&D process, with private R&D preferred over the large–scale sponsoring of research by the state.

Still, even with the dynamism of the American model on full display, some Europeans pine reflexively for increased government funding for bioscience projects. For example, some lament that not more of Dr. Feldmann's research was performed with government grants. What makes one believe, however, that government funding would have led to better results—or even equally good results—for Dr. Feldmann's research?

Feldmann might have been tied up in bureaucratic knots over the release of his funding; his flexibility might have been hindered; and a creative approach to finding new treatments might have been strongly discouraged in favor of a less effective but more "certain" cure preferred by government grant–committees that dislike exploring the unknown.

Rather than spend more money on R&D, European governments should address the root causes for why private companies are investing comparatively less on medical R&D in Europe. In 2004, private companies financed 64% of total research expenditures in the U.S., but just 55 percent of total research expenditure in the current 27 EU member states. If anything, Europe suffers not from a lack of government funding of R&D but from an excess.

Compared to the U.S., the role of the state in financing R&D is greater in Europe. Yet having European governments compensate for low private sector expenditures by spending more on research is self–defeating: it allows governments to avoid tackling the root causes of the problem while claiming they are "doing something."

European governments can do far more good by removing or alleviating obstacles created by the state, such as stringent price controls on drugs, prohibitions of direct–to–consumer prescription drug advertising, assignments of R&D funds in state universities on the basis of seniority rather than competitively, burdensome regulations on venture capital, cultural norms that look down on cooperation between scientists in academia and scientists in private industry, and a general attitude that the state should take the lead in sponsoring medical research and development.

Europeans should celebrate Feldmann's accomplishments and the role that the private sector—and philanthropic institutions—can play in delivering outstanding medical breakthroughs. By removing roadblocks put in front of private companies by the state, and by alleviating others (such as price controls on drugs), Europe can reclaim a proud heritage of medical innovation that dates back to the Industrial Revolution.

Jurgen Reinhoudt is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. A native of the Netherlands, he graduated with honors from Princeton University with a degree in Politics.

try this article, as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/busine...ref=slogin

Economic Scene
Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation
By TYLER COWEN

Advocates of national health insurance cite an apparently devastating fact: the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on medical care than any nation in the world, yet Americans do not live longer than Western Europeans or Japanese. More Americans lack insurance coverage as well. It is no wonder that so many people demand reform.

But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

Dr. Thomas Boehm of Jerini, a biomedical research company in Berlin, titled his article in The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

The gains from medical innovations are high. For instance, increases in life expectancy resulting from better treatment of cardiovascular disease from 1970 to 1990 have been conservatively estimated as bringing benefits worth more than $500 billion a year. And that is just for the United States.

The American system also produces benefits that are hard to find in the numbers. The economist Arnold Kling in his “Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care” (Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.

Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University and co-writer ofa blog at http://www.marginalrevolution.com. He can be reached at tcowen@gmu.edu.

just a thought:
for a group that complains about government intrusion into the bedroom,
the American political left seems more than willing to allow the government into their
bedroom/hospital room/physicians' offices in regards to healthcare, healthcare treatment and lifestyle.
go figure

as posted elsewhere, this isn't about healthcare. it's about the continued erosions of our freedoms,
and control of our lives relinquished to a central government.
If you think health insurance/health care is a right, you're sadly mistaken.
If the government can deny it, it can't be a right.

(07-25-2009 06:15 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]just a thought:
for a group that complains about government intrusion into the bedroom,
the American political left seems more than willing to allow the government into their
bedroom/hospital room/physicians' offices in regards to healthcare, healthcare treatment and lifestyle.
go figure

as posted elsewhere, this isn't about healthcare. it's about the continued erosions of our freedoms,
and control of our lives relinquished to a central government.
If you think health insurance/health care is a right, you're sadly mistaken.
If the government can deny it, it can't be a right.

Just a thought--The current struggle in Congress is not to block government interference between doctor and patient, but to keep government from checking the insurance company's current absolute control of the doctor's ability to prescribe for his patient without the insurance company's interference. I have cited my wife's experience with that aspect and I described it.

This is entirely about the health care of the American people and the fact that poor medical care costs the taxpayers of America more money than if Americans could be kept as "well" as genetically possible. You have the same right to the best available health care as to the best available military protection of your country.

(07-26-2009 12:52 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Just a thought--The current struggle in Congress is not to block government interference between doctor and patient, but to keep government from checking the insurance company's current absolute control of the doctor's ability to prescribe for his patient without the insurance company's interference. I have cited my wife's experience with that aspect and I described it.

This is entirely about the health care of the American people and the fact that poor medical care costs the taxpayers of America more money than if Americans could be kept as "well" as genetically possible. You have the same right to the best available health care as to the best available military protection of your country.

more mindless blather.
currently, there is no healthcare crisis in our Country. there will be, if the left succeeds in passing this scheme.
that 'right' to which you keep mentioning exists for now. Simply because your insurance refuses payment
[for any treatment] doesn't mean you can't receive said treatment. YOU may have to pay
'out of pocket' but, it's your choice. under bho's/political left's scheme, treatment can and will be denied.
once the government decides against any treatment, that treatment will no longer be
among your choices in the US. private contracts between patient and physician [for treatment]
will not be allowed under the proposed scheme.
currently, we have the experience/history of government making these healthcare decisions in UK and Canada.
where's your individual 'right' in that scenario? have you ever read/heard the term NICE?

Of NICE and Men
JULY 7, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html

Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.

Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.

The British officials who established NICE in the late 1990s pitched it as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. As the Guardian reported in 1998: "Health ministers are setting up [NICE], designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."

What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS.
For example:

In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs -- including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 -- that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients. After last year's ruling, Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director, noted that "there is a limited pot of money," that the drugs were of "marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost," and the money might be better spent elsewhere.

In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients."

NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not "cost effective" in early stages.

Other NICE rulings include the rejection of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis; Avonex, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with multiple sclerosis; and lenalidomide, which fights multiple myeloma. Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.

NICE has also produced guidance that restrains certain surgical operations and treatments. NICE has restrictions on fertility treatments, as well as on procedures for back pain, including surgeries and steroid injections. The U.K. has recently been absorbed by the cases of several young women who developed cervical cancer after being denied pap smears by a related health authority, the Cervical Screening Programme, which in order to reduce government health-care spending has refused the screens to women under age 25.

We could go on. NICE is the target of frequent protests and lawsuits, and at times under political pressure has reversed or watered-down its rulings. But it has by now established the principle that the only way to control health-care costs is for this panel of medical high priests to dictate limits on certain kinds of care to certain classes of patients.

The NICE board even has a mathematical formula for doing so, based on a "quality adjusted life year." While the guidelines are complex, NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months. Why $22,000? It seems to be arbitrary, calculated mainly based on how much the government wants to spend on health care. That figure has remained fairly constant since NICE was established and doesn't adjust for either overall or medical inflation.

Proponents argue that such cost-benefit analysis has to figure into health-care decisions, and that any medical system rations care in some way. And it is true that U.S. private insurers also deny reimbursement for some kinds of care. The core issue is whether those decisions are going to be dictated by the brute force of politics (NICE) or by prices (a private insurance system).

The last six months of life are a particularly difficult moral issue because that is when most health-care spending occurs. But who would you rather have making decisions about whether a treatment is worth the price -- the combination of you, your doctor and a private insurer, or a government board that cuts everyone off at $22,000?

One virtue of a private system is that competition allows choice and experimentation. To take an example from one of our recent editorials, Medicare today refuses to reimburse for the new, less invasive preventive treatment known as a virtual colonoscopy, but such private insurers as Cigna and United Healthcare do. As clinical evidence accumulates on the virtual colonoscopy, doctors and insurers will be able to adjust their practices accordingly. NICE merely issues orders, and patients have little recourse.

This has medical consequences. The Concord study published in 2008 showed that cancer survival rates in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Five-year survival rates among U.S. cancer patients are also significantly higher than in Europe: 84% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 92% vs. 57% for prostate cancer. While there is more than one reason for this difference, surely one is medical innovation and the greater U.S. willingness to reimburse for it.
************************************************************​************************
I'm not extemely fond of the 'blame America first' crowd. The institutions that have made the USA
the greatest Country EVER have been under assault for years by this group.
But I don't want to see anyone allowed to die because some government pol decided
they were too old, too young or too sick for treatment.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

But you're ok with letting people die because the insurance companies didn't want to pay out a claim? It's already happening.

(07-26-2009 09:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]But you're ok with letting people die because the insurance companies didn't want to pay out a claim? It's already happening.

why is it the 'evil' insurance company's fault someone dies? currently, you still have the choice
to receive treatment under a private contract ['out of pocket'] between you and your health care professional.
under the new 'power grab scheme', the 'out of pocket' choice will not be available.
how compassionate is that? liberals as the 'compassionate' guardians of the Constitution is a myth.
if the insurance companies are sooo 'evil', why do 91% of Americans have health insurance,
and 83% rate their healthcare as good or excellent?
mixedup, you've unwittingly swerved into the truth and revealed the motive.
this isn't about healthcare. this is another attempt at social engineering.
this is another attempt to 'level the playing field', to 'get even' by spreading the misery.
only this time, it's in the guise of 'fairness' and 'compassion' in the form of socialized medicine.
this removes ANOTHER right, the right to form a private contract.
the 'blame America first' crowds' line of reasoning seems to be:
because someone, somewhere is unable/unwilling to pay for treatment,
the ability to do so should be 'off the table' for those who are willing/able.
I don't have/can't afford 'golden cadillac' health insurance. but, I don't begrudge those that do/can afford.
liberals always seem to want to 'get even', instead of taking personal responsibility.
And, they always want to do it by infringing upon anothers' rights, and with other peoples' money.
Do as I say, not as I do.

I'd like to hear from those in favor of Obama's plan explain how healthcare is going to improve through the changes he is advocating.

Throughout history, the greatest improvements in lifespan and health of a nation have come through public health initiatives like hand-washing, clean water, and vaccines. Obama talks of "preventative programs" and "reimbursement for quality, not just quantity, of care", yet that takes the responsibility of the patient out of all of this. People in the country don't take care of themselves. That's why a third of our state is obese, and the rates of obesity are on the rise throughout the country. If people keep eating themselves into oblivion, all the preventative programs in the world aren't going save money or improve health. A physician can prescribe the 100% appropriate treatments and medications, but if the patient is non-compliant, it's not going to make a difference. Is this new government plan going to refuse payment to the physician due to this poor outcome that is solely the fault of the patient?

If the argument is that we spend more money on healthcare with worse outcomes than other countries, then reform needs to address both of these issues. So far the only sure thing I have heard mentioned is an expansion of coverage. There's been some things mentioned that could cut costs, but that seems to be debatable, with the CBO saying the current plan is not going to be budget-neutral. I don't hear anything about how healthcare here is going to improve outside of this nebulous idea of a council determining what "best practices" are. The problem with that is patients don't read the textbooks, and individual treatment has to be designed for everyone. Best practices are not algorithms.

Where is TORT reform in all of this???? Limit BS lawsuites and stupid jury damage awards

(07-26-2009 11:19 AM)Blazer Engineer Wrote: [ -> ]Where is TORT reform in all of this???? Limit BS lawsuites and stupid jury damage awards

Repubs want it, Dems don't.

Tort reform would be a massive step to stemming insurance cost.

(07-26-2009 09:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]But you're ok with letting people die because the insurance companies didn't want to pay out a claim? It's already happening.

Do you not realize that there are people dying under the great universal healthcare because they don't have access to MDs in Canada and the UK? Its already happening, except those people don't have a choice.

Do you really want the government deciding your healthcare?

(07-26-2009 03:18 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2009 09:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]But you're ok with letting people die because the insurance companies didn't want to pay out a claim? It's already happening.

Do you not realize that there are people dying under the great universal healthcare because they don't have access to MDs in Canada and the UK? Its already happening, except those people don't have a choice.

Do you really want the government deciding your healthcare?

People dying because they can't get healthcare in the UK or Canada is a strawman. Every time there is an interview of a Canadian that isn't on the payroll of PhRMA they always say they can't figure out where Americans get the idea of waiting lists, etc in the Canadian system. Oh and I guess it doesn't matter because Obama isn't proposing a system like Canada or the UK any damned way.

(07-26-2009 12:33 PM)Blazer Engineer Wrote: [ -> ]Tort reform would be a massive step to stemming insurance cost.

Tort reform is like the bankruptcy changes. The business folks don't want to give up the right of a business being able to sue someone, but they want persons suing them to be blocked. They were able to get individual personal bankruptcy made much more difficult, but company/corporate bankruptcy goes right along as before to protect their own pockets. You want tort reform? Outlaw anyone suing anyone, personal or business. You can bet the business lobbys will have the first fit over it. According to ABA stats from a few years ago, about 80% of tort cases were businesses suing other businesses.

(07-26-2009 09:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]But you're ok with letting people die because the insurance companies didn't want to pay out a claim? It's already happening.

How about Ted Kennedy's brain surgery? He was able to have it even though he is terminal and it will prolong his life. Under Obamacare, it would not make sense to waste the money on a terminally ill patient to do this. Here are your pain meds, good luck sir.

I say F that. Thanks, Oldblazer for the excellent articles.

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care -- all government creations.

So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.

The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary -- which you ought to pay for yourself -- and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments -- which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.

This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes -- as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, and leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy.

But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat -- but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.

As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance -- and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.

Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care -- especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.

Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster -- less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.

Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.

(07-26-2009 05:42 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2009 03:18 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2009 09:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]But you're ok with letting people die because the insurance companies didn't want to pay out a claim? It's already happening.

Do you not realize that there are people dying under the great universal healthcare because they don't have access to MDs in Canada and the UK? Its already happening, except those people don't have a choice.

Do you really want the government deciding your healthcare?

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSow...dical_care

How is it a strawman? There are tons of cases of people not receiving timely treatment under universal, government controlled plans. Or, you could just do like Thomas Sowell suggests, and evaluate the Medicare, Medicade, and VA programs. They are three government run healthcare programs here in the US. 40% of MDs don't take Medicare and Medicade for a reason: government price control.
People dying because they can't get healthcare in the UK or Canada is a strawman. Every time there is an interview of a Canadian that isn't on the payroll of PhRMA they always say they can't figure out where Americans get the idea of waiting lists, etc in the Canadian system. Oh and I guess it doesn't matter because Obama isn't proposing a system like Canada or the UK any damned way.

keeping your head in the sand doesn't change anything. if this scheme comes to pass, you won't
be able to question, why didn't somebody tell me? I'm one of the guys telling you.
you can't rely on the msm, which has become nothing more than the stenographers
and conduits of propoganda for the American political left.
the framework for the obamacare version of uk's NICE is already in place.
the bas*ards [in congress] slipped it into, of all things,
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and
Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research
what do these have to do with economic 'stimulus'?
don't let the titles fool you. this is incrementalism, a tried and true tactic of the left
do something congress DIDN'T do, read the entire bill.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi...ic_review/


Stimulus Sets Stage for Huge New Federal Health Bureaucracy
Monday, February 16, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – The stimulus bill Congress passed on Friday contains provisions that health-care advocates and lawmakers say may not amount to a government takeover of health care now, but they do lay the groundwork for the eventual nationalization of one-fifth of the American economy.

The bill, which passed the House and Senate Friday and is to be signed into law on Tuesday by President Obama -- contains $1.1 billion for “comparative effectiveness medical research” and $17.2 billion to create a federal health information technology bureaucracy.

It specifically authorizes the creation of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology -- and the appointment of a 15-member board of officials from federal agencies and others -- charged with developing a nationwide health information database.

The bill charges the National Coordinator with meeting numerous goals – including “the electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information” and “the utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.”

Meanwhile, the bill also creates a Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research to "accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies.”

According to the bill's language, the council will: “(1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions; and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data.”

Former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey, a health care advocate and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, has been sounding the alarm about both provisions.

“The bill will require that whenever you get a medical treatment, it is entered into a federal electronic database,” McGaughey told CNSNews.com. “Although it may sound good to have your medical records stored electronically, this is not being done for your benefit or for your doctor’s."

Everyone in the United States will eventually be in the datbase, she added..

“The bill makes it very clear that everyone will be included in this, not just recipients of Medicare and Medicaid, or other federal health programs,” McGaughey told CNSNews.com.

McGaughey said the creaton of “a huge new federal bureaucracy to create a huge national medical database” is part of just a two-pronged effort to insert govermnent even further into the health-care system.

The new federal councill to conduct research on the comparative effectiveness of medical care, she said, “will set new limits on the kinds of treatment people on Medicare and Medicaid can get.”

“The stimulus bill provides that Medicare, which now pays for treatments deemed ‘safe and effective,’ in the future will only pay for treatments deemed ‘cost-effective’ by the standards set by this federal council,” McGaughey added.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) is especially concerned about the comparative effectiveness research, which he says only sets the stage for the inevitable federal takeover of the health care system.

“What they are doing is funding so-called research, but that research, in the words of Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who wrote the bill, is intended to decide ‘which items and procedures and interventions may be found to be more expensive and will no longer be prescribed,’” Shadegg told CNSNews.com.

Shadegg, who led 40 members of the House in seeking language to prohibit strict “cost-effectiveness” being applied to medical care and research, said the implications are more than troubling.

“What they envision is a single payer system in which they -- the federal bureaucracy – will decide what ‘procedures, interventions and items’ – we’re largely talking about medicines, prescription drugs here – you will be able to be prescribed according to the federal edicts that they will issue according to this research,” Shadegg told CNSNews.com.

The stage is being set for the federal government, which already has a huge say in health care, to have a signficantly larger role, he said.

“They already control the procedures in Medicare and Medicaid, and they could just decide – ‘You know what, we’ve done this comparative effectiveness research and we think its OK for this procedure to be done on 55-year-olds, but now you’re 65-years-old, or 70? – Sorry we can’t afford to do this on you,’ ” Shadegg said.

Both Shadegg and McGaughey say the new federal coordinating council seems to be modeled after a similar organization in Britain, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness, nicknamed NICE.

“The English version of this approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit,” McGaughey said. “So treatments for younger patients are much more cost-effective than treatments for older patients who may only have 20, 15, or 10 more years to live.”

“In 2006, this UK health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration – that’s an eye disease that causes blindness -- had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye,” she added.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, both released a statement disputing the criticism of the language. The Democratic leaders said the National Coordinator would "absolutely not" have influence about the decisions that doctors and patients make about tests and treatment.

Moreover, a provision was added to the bill in the conference commitee that would provide that "nothing shall be construed" to require private entities to meet national standardsa or implentent governement specifications.

But Shadegg is still more than wary.

“It is true that it (the stimulus bill) does not actually create the enforcement mechanism,” Shadegg told CNSNews.com. “But why would you spend $1.1 billion to set out the rules over how and who we could deny care to, and what drugs we’re going to deny and what drugs we’re going to agree to, or what treatments your doctor can have and not have -- if at some point, they’re not going to create that mechanism?”

(07-26-2009 09:40 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2009 12:33 PM)Blazer Engineer Wrote: [ -> ]Tort reform would be a massive step to stemming insurance cost.

Tort reform is like the bankruptcy changes. The business folks don't want to give up the right of a business being able to sue someone, but they want persons suing them to be blocked. They were able to get individual personal bankruptcy made much more difficult, but company/corporate bankruptcy goes right along as before to protect their own pockets. You want tort reform? Outlaw anyone suing anyone, personal or business. You can bet the business lobbys will have the first fit over it. According to ABA stats from a few years ago, about 80% of tort cases were businesses suing other businesses.

The vast majority of suits brought by businesses are brought in contract, not in tort. Not that I suspect you know the difference between the two. Tort reform will have little or no effect on the ability of corporations to bring lawsuits, but it would shield them against lawsuits in tort (think products liability). So, no, tort reform is nothing like the most recent bankruptcy law changes which (and I can't believe I'm about to agree with you here) were done by credit companies throwing their weight around.

I'm not advocating for or against tort reform here, but I'll throw this out there. Plaintiffs aren't getting the kind of awards you think they are, especially here in Alabama. This is a defendant freindly state. I worked for a law firm for a year before I went to law school that primarily defends doctors against malpractice claims. They do not lose. Ever. But that is not to say that malpractice premiums don't drive up healthcare costs, because they do. My point is that tort reform should be looked at as an issue of law, not an issue of healthcare reduction cost.

(07-28-2009 02:32 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2009 09:40 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2009 12:33 PM)Blazer Engineer Wrote: [ -> ]Tort reform would be a massive step to stemming insurance cost.

Tort reform is like the bankruptcy changes. The business folks don't want to give up the right of a business being able to sue someone, but they want persons suing them to be blocked. They were able to get individual personal bankruptcy made much more difficult, but company/corporate bankruptcy goes right along as before to protect their own pockets. You want tort reform? Outlaw anyone suing anyone, personal or business. You can bet the business lobbys will have the first fit over it. According to ABA stats from a few years ago, about 80% of tort cases were businesses suing other businesses.

The vast majority of suits brought by businesses are brought in contract, not in tort. Not that I suspect you know the difference between the two. Tort reform will have little or no effect on the ability of corporations to bring lawsuits, but it would shield them against lawsuits in tort (think products liability). So, no, tort reform is nothing like the most recent bankruptcy law changes which (and I can't believe I'm about to agree with you here) were done by credit companies throwing their weight around.

I'm not advocating for or against tort reform here, but I'll throw this out there. Plaintiffs aren't getting the kind of awards you think they are, especially here in Alabama. This is a defendant freindly state. I worked for a law firm for a year before I went to law school that primarily defends doctors against malpractice claims. They do not lose. Ever. But that is not to say that malpractice premiums don't drive up healthcare costs, because they do. My point is that tort reform should be looked at as an issue of law, not an issue of healthcare reduction cost.

I agree with this. I worked for the malpractice insurance company that employed those same lawyers as well as working for the doctors who bought the same insurance. Malpractice is high, but not as much as most people think. OB/GYN is one of the highest and 4 years ago it was about $25,000/year. Not cheap, but the OBs were making 300-500K after paying all expenses, including those premiums!

Healthcare cost is driven by a poor insurance model and the stupid "preferred provider"/adjustment concept. My former company had 50 employees and had the cadillac plan that cost me $500/month. My current company has 2000 employees, a good plan, and it costs me $175/month. The difference is the exposures at each company are the basis of the premium. I am lumped in with people twice my age in both cases, but now there are only 25% of the people in that group, where it was closer to 50% in the other. Insurance works on the law of large numbers and by using employers as the pool, you are limiting the numbers. Insurance should be state wide, with age based coverage groups. A 21 year old single man does not cost the same to cover as a 60 year old man, that is not an issue of fair or not, but of real costs.

from the Stanford Univ. Hoover Institution
Here’s a Second Opinion
Ten reasons why America’s health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. By Scott W. Atlas
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

But haven't you heard? Our system won't be ANYTHING like it is in Canada or the UK. The lefties can't really tell us how or why, they just know it.

(08-03-2009 08:27 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]But haven't you heard? Our system won't be ANYTHING like it is in Canada or the UK. The lefties can't really tell us how or why, they just know it.

Uh, yeah, they can. In the UK the government owns all the hospitals and the doctors are employees of the government. In the proposed plan in the US, the healthcare delivery system would remain the same, the only addition would be that the government would offer a public insurance plan.

If you would listen and intelligently debate instead of just calling everyone a communist, we might actually get somewhere in this country.

(08-03-2009 09:02 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-03-2009 08:27 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]But haven't you heard? Our system won't be ANYTHING like it is in Canada or the UK. The lefties can't really tell us how or why, they just know it.

Uh, yeah, they can. In the UK the government owns all the hospitals and the doctors are employees of the government. In the proposed plan in the US, the healthcare delivery system would remain the same,
the only addition would be that the government would offer a public insurance plan.

If you would listen and intelligently debate instead of just calling everyone a communist, we might actually get somewhere in this country.

take your own advice and you'll find this part isn't true.
I've even posted links to the proposals/bills, but apparently you haven't read them.
of course, keeping your head in the sand and believing everything bho [and the collectivists]
disseminate(s) is better. the sad thing is, he's said so much more than the msm is reporting.
too bad I'm technologically challenged in regards to imbedding vids, or I could show you in their own words.
Im tired of wasting my efforts on you mixedup, you'll never believe it anyway.
Just don't come back and say 'no one told me this was gonna happen'.
I'm pretty certain you were warned about bho's collectivist background, but you still support(ed) him.

(08-03-2009 09:02 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-03-2009 08:27 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]But haven't you heard? Our system won't be ANYTHING like it is in Canada or the UK. The lefties can't really tell us how or why, they just know it.

Uh, yeah, they can. In the UK the government owns all the hospitals and the doctors are employees of the government. In the proposed plan in the US, the healthcare delivery system would remain the same, the only addition would be that the government would offer a public insurance plan.

If you would listen and intelligently debate instead of just calling everyone a communist, we might actually get somewhere in this country.

Page 16 of the bill states that private insurance cannot insure any new members following the passing of the bill. That means private insurance will disappear in about 5 years, as they will have huge losses from paying for older insureds with no younger insureds to balance the losses. At which point there is only one insurer... Which means the government will control the whole system. Same as the other systems, just using money to get there.

Obama was asked directly about this part of the plan and his response was that he was not familiar with all of the parts of the plan.... Seems like a pretty big part to not be familiar with....