So what would a bipartisan health care reform bill include?

[EVAY]

John McCain is quoted this morning as saying that he thinks Obama should start over with Health Care, and actually make an attempt at bipartisan authorship of such a bill. Presumably, Republicans would want tort reform to be included in any health care reform. What say you, forum members? Who on this board would participate in health care reform efforts, and what would you want included and excluded?

I, for one, believe that there is a need for Health Care reform, but I also think that this bill is awful, and that the dems have given up WAY to much to their own members to pass something. I would want a new bill to include:

Some measure of tort reform (not doing away with all possilbities of suits, but some limitations), and

A requirement that Insurance companies not be allowed to turn people down for coverage if they have 'a pre-existing condition'.

What else would anybody say we HAD to have, and if you don't like one of these, would you agree to allow it in for the purpose of having some sort of reform? For example, what about universal coverage (and if you feel it has to be part of it, how would you pay for it?)?

Gentlemen, start your keyboards!

[TeyshaBlue]

John McCain is quoted this morning as saying that he thinks Obama should start over with Health Care, and actually make an attempt at bipartisan authorship of such a bill. Presumably, Republicans would want tort reform to be included in any health care reform. What say you, forum members? Who on this board would participate in health care reform efforts, and what would you want included and excluded?

I, for one, believe that there is a need for Health Care reform, but I also think that this bill is awful, and that the dems have given up WAY to much to their own members to pass something. I would want a new bill to include:

Some measure of tort reform (not doing away with all possilbities of suits, but some limitations), and

A requirement that Insurance companies not be allowed to turn people down for coverage if they have 'a pre-existing condition'.

What else would anybody say we HAD to have, and if you don't like one of these, would you agree to allow it in for the purpose of having some sort of reform? For example, what about universal coverage (and if you feel it has to be part of it, how would you pay for it?)?

Gentlemen, start your keyboards!

Pricing transparency and a uniform standard for transactions. If we really knew how much our doctor visits cost and those trips to the hospital, we could conceivably make a decision based on value delivered. But, until we break the opacity of the co-pay system, true costs are never known to the consumer until after the service is rendered.

[Winehole23]

Transparency is a biggie.

[jack sommerset]

It should include "Get a fucking job and pay for your own shit"

[EVAY]

It should include "Get a fucking job and pay for your own shit"

Knew I could count on you, Jack!!

[mogrovejo]

A requirement that Insurance companies not be allowed to turn people down for coverage if they have 'a pre-existing condition'.

That's a killer because it'd necessarily lead to mandates. Unless there's no kind of price control mechanism (so insurers can ask for a price nobody would be willing to pay) and in that case, what's exactly the point?

To me:

1. Tort reform
2. Free trade on drugs (re-importation)
3. Allow individuals and employers to purchase insurance across state lines
4. Allow individuals and small businesses to band together increasing their bargaining power with insurance providers
5. Cut the government waste in bureocracies like the U.S. Department of Health and give that money saved to citizens who can use it to purchase health-care if they want to.

[boutons_deux]

Doctors and doctors' groups are already threatening to refuse even more Medicare/Medicaid patients and universal coverage patients because the govt doesn't pay as much as the private insurers. The spoiled, avaricious, patient-flipping doctors are a huge component of the most-expensive-health-care-in-the-world.

Don't touch their cheese, or they'll really fuck you over.

A lot of doctors won't deal even with private insurance. You pay cash up front, and you fight with the insurer.

Tort reform is a red-herring, as TX tort reform proved. Anybody talking about tort reform is a lying bastard.

The across-state-lines is bullshit because there is a cartel of private insurers that don't compete on price anyway. Do you really think a LA or KS insurer is cheaper/better than a TX insurer? you silly fart

"increasing their bargaining power" the private insurers don't need your $$, would say "fuck you, pay your own medical bills. We have captured the medium/large business which pays us much better per contract than you little wimps"

There is no doubt waste in any huge bureaucracy, private or govt. Medicare (and SocSec) overheads are a small percentage, 5%, vs private insurers' overheads, 20% - 30%.

[coyotes_geek]

There's too many competing political interests in play here to expect the government to be able to come up with any kind of a plan that could actually make things better. Everybody wants something they're not getting now and nobody is willing to give up more than they already are. Basically, this is a problem that the government is absolutely incapable of fixing. In the mean time, we're still standing directly underneath a giant free-falling anvil known as medicare insolvency. Unfortunately for us, we're a bunch of chickenshits who don't want to look up because that might require acknowledging that we're about to get splattered. Instead of trying to figure out how we can spend a bunch of money to put even more people on the government teet we should be trying to figure out who and how we're going to stick it to in order to keep that $60 trillion dollar debacle known as medicare from bankrupting us all.

[TeyshaBlue]

Doctors and doctors' groups are already threatening to refuse even more Medicare/Medicaid patients and universal coverage patients because the govt doesn't pay as much as the private insurers. The spoiled, avaricious, patient-flipping doctors are a huge component of the most-expensive-health-care-in-the-world.

Don't touch their cheese, or they'll really fuck you over.

A lot of doctors won't deal even with private insurance. You pay cash up front, and you fight with the insurer.

Tort reform is a red-herring, as TX tort reform proved. Anybody talking about tort reform is a lying bastard.

The across-state-lines is bullshit because there is a cartel of private insurers that don't compete on price anyway. Do you really think a LA or KS insurer is cheaper/better than a TX insurer? you silly fart

"increasing their bargaining power" the private insurers don't need your $$, would say "fuck you, pay your own medical bills. We have captured the medium/large business which pays us much better per contract than you little wimps"

There is no doubt waste in any huge bureaucracy, private or govt. Medicare (and SocSec) overheads are a small percentage, 5%, vs private insurers' overheads, 20% - 30%.

Asinine rant aside, do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?

kthxbye.

[TeyshaBlue]

It should include "Get a fucking job and pay for your own shit"

Nice and very well thought out....



:rolleyes

Fuck! Should that be in blue?

[boutons_deux]

I contribute facts, not teabagger/Repug wet dreams

"Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail."

$30B fucking TOTAL! how much of that was fraud or frivolous?

Probably under 10%, so 10% of 1.5% is trivial, aka, a Repug/insurance company RED HERRING.

[TeyshaBlue]

I contribute facts, not teabagger/Repug wet dreams

"Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail."

$30B fucking TOTAL! how much of that was fraud or frivolous?

Probably under 10%, so 10% of 1.5% is trivial, aka, a Repug/insurance company RED HERRING.

OP = So what would a bipartisan health care reform bill include?

Try to stay on topic. Get a grown up to help you.

[Winehole23]

mogrovejo did put tort reform first. Costwise, it's of marginal impact.

[EVAY]

I contribute facts, not teabagger/Repug wet dreams

"Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail."

$30B fucking TOTAL! how much of that was fraud or frivolous?

Probably under 10%, so 10% of 1.5% is trivial, aka, a Repug/insurance company RED HERRING.

So, are you saying that tort reform would make you reject health care reform?

[jack sommerset]

Buttons will eventually blame Bush.

[TeyshaBlue]

Another issue to address is the byzantine world of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing....and the endless, quasi-tier based pricing structures.

While I think the OP is worthwhile, a corollary could very easily be:
So how could a bipartisan health care reform be created?

Ostensibly, no one in congress has any particular expertise in healthcare, or it's various machinations. Do you recruit industry guys? Do you go to the Universities?

[EVAY]

There's too many competing political interests in play here to expect the government to be able to come up with any kind of a plan that could actually make things better. Everybody wants something they're not getting now and nobody is willing to give up more than they already are. Basically, this is a problem that the government is absolutely incapable of fixing. In the mean time, we're still standing directly underneath a giant free-falling anvil known as medicare insolvency. Unfortunately for us, we're a bunch of chickenshits who don't want to look up because that might require acknowledging that we're about to get splattered. Instead of trying to figure out how we can spend a bunch of money to put even more people on the government teet we should be trying to figure out who and how we're going to stick it to in order to keep that $60 trillion dollar debacle known as medicare from bankrupting us all.

So,do we give up on health care reform? I honestly believe that right now we have a system that is the most expensive in the world, but is not the best in the world. To me, that means that reform is possible and desirable.

I don't challenge your medicare cost estimates. The realistic assessment though, is that it is not going away, so the only real question is how to pay for it. Medicare seems to me to 'universal coverage if you live long enough to qualify for it age-wise'. I wouldn't mind seeing a means-test for it, but that is not politically palatable so there is little point in pursuing it.

[EVAY]

Another issue to address is the byzantine world of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing....and the endless, quasi-tier based pricing structures.

While I think the OP is worthwhile, a corollary could very easily be:
So how could a bipartisan health care reform be created?

Ostensibly, no one in congress has any particular expertise in healthcare, or it's various machinations. Do you recruit industry guys? Do you go to the Universities?

You are right about the corollary. I wondered what the positions would be of the extremes on the board, and so far Jack and Boutons have followed expectations, i.e., screaming. That said, your corollary could become the question I asked of CG, 'do we then give up?'.

Directly to your corollary though, it seems possible that a bipartisan group could bring in their experts, and then the experts could come up with a plan that the bipartisan group could then bring to the congress. Maybe the White House should initiate the bi-partisan group, although without congressional buy-in I don't think there would be any point. It couldn't hurt, though, could it?

[SnakeBoy]

1.) Public Option/Co-Op: A governement non profit that would be required to be self sustaining after the initial start up costs.
2.) Allow private insurers to sell policies across states lines.
3.) Meaningful TORT Reform

Passes easily. Bipartisanship isn't that difficult.

[mogrovejo]

mogrovejo did put tort reform first. Costwise, it's of marginal impact.

The order is more or less arbitrary.

[EVAY]

It should include "Get a fucking job and pay for your own shit"

So, to make sure I understand your position, take the following example:

Say a high-paid executive in some corporation is diagnosed with a brain tumor that is not cancerous but cannot be completely removed because of its location. Said person goes through surgery, rehabilitation, etc., and is still unable to work 6 months later. So, the company fires the person, and of course their insurance coverage goes with it. COBRA payments allow them to continue insurance coverage for however long it lasts, but at some point COBRA runs out and the person loses all insurance coverage. Moreover, even if they were ever able to get a job again, (even part time because of disabilites, etc), they will never get insurance coverage because of the 'pre-existing' condition.

Your position at that point regarding this individual who was a high-tax paying member of society until a brain tumor was diagnosed is: Fuck you, you no-account lay-about?

[EVAY]

1.) Public Option/Co-Op: A governement non profit that would be required to be self sustaining after the initial start up costs.
2.) Allow private insurers to sell policies across states lines.
3.) Meaningful TORT Reform

Passes easily. Bipartisanship isn't that difficult.

Hey, works for me. Are you serious that you think it would pass easily?

[EVAY]

mogrovejo did put tort reform first. Costwise, it's of marginal impact.

That may well be true, but Health Care Reform seems to be a non-starter for Republicans without it, so I wouldn't be opposed to including it in some fashion. I don't believe that people should have no recourse to bad medical mistakes, but I think some reform could certainly be in order, e.g., some threshhold showing before a suit can be brought to limit frivolity, and some limits on payouts.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, to make sure I understand your position, take the following example:

Say a high-paid executive in some corporation is diagnosed with a brain tumor that is not cancerous but cannot be completely removed because of its location. Said person goes through surgery, rehabilitation, etc., and is still unable to work 6 months later. So, the company fires the person, and of course their insurance coverage goes with it. COBRA payments allow them to continue insurance coverage for however long it lasts, but at some point COBRA runs out and the person loses all insurance coverage. Moreover, even if they were ever able to get a job again, (even part time because of disabilites, etc), they will never get insurance coverage because of the 'pre-existing' condition.

Your position at that point regarding this individual who was a high-tax paying member of society until a brain tumor was diagnosed is: Fuck you, you no-account lay-about?

jack never really thinks things thru..he's a black and white world kind of person..

[coyotes_geek]

So,do we give up on health care reform? I honestly believe that right now we have a system that is the most expensive in the world, but is not the best in the world. To me, that means that reform is possible and desirable.

I don't challenge your medicare cost estimates. The realistic assessment though, is that it is not going away, so the only real question is how to pay for it. Medicare seems to me to 'universal coverage if you live long enough to qualify for it age-wise'. I wouldn't mind seeing a means-test for it, but that is not politically palatable so there is little point in pursuing it.

We should certainly give up on any kind of health care reform that doesn't involve dealing with medicare. The longer we ignore it, the more painful it will be to deal with it. At some point we're going to have to acknowledge that every American needs to be told that the system has been out of balance for far too long and as a result everyone will have to pay more and get less.

One idea I do support though is the "junk food tax". A large portion of our healthcare expenses are related to our large waistlines. Tax junk food like we do with cigarettes. At the end of the year divvy up the revenues equally to all Americans by depositing that money into HSA accounts that they can use to fund their own personal health care.

[SnakeBoy]

Hey, works for me. Are you serious that you think it would pass easily?

Absolutely. If Obama scratched the current plan and submitted this plan he would be in a position to do several things. First he would see a big jump in his approval ratings which would give him more leverage. Second he would put Republicans in the position of voting against the very things they have been claiming would fix the system. Third he would put any Democrats who opposed it in the position of voting against the very things they have been claiming would fix the system.

[SnakeBoy]

everyone will have to pay more and get less.


Or reduce healthcare costs. See my first post.

[spursncowboys]

that's a killer because it'd necessarily lead to mandates. Unless there's no kind of price control mechanism (so insurers can ask for a price nobody would be willing to pay) and in that case, what's exactly the point?

To me:

1. Tort reform
2. Free trade on drugs (re-importation)
3. Allow individuals and employers to purchase insurance across state lines
4. Allow individuals and small businesses to band together increasing their bargaining power with insurance providers
5. Cut the government waste in bureocracies like the u.s. Department of health and give that money saved to citizens who can use it to purchase health-care if they want to.+1

[George Gervin's Afro]

John McCain is quoted this morning as saying that he thinks Obama should start over with Health Care, and actually make an attempt at bipartisan authorship of such a bill. Presumably, Republicans would want tort reform to be included in any health care reform. What say you, forum members? Who on this board would participate in health care reform efforts, and what would you want included and excluded?

I, for one, believe that there is a need for Health Care reform, but I also think that this bill is awful, and that the dems have given up WAY to much to their own members to pass something. I would want a new bill to include:

Some measure of tort reform (not doing away with all possilbities of suits, but some limitations), and

A requirement that Insurance companies not be allowed to turn people down for coverage if they have 'a pre-existing condition'.

What else would anybody say we HAD to have, and if you don't like one of these, would you agree to allow it in for the purpose of having some sort of reform? For example, what about universal coverage (and if you feel it has to be part of it, how would you pay for it?)?

Gentlemen, start your keyboards!


What McCain and republicans don't get is that they are in the minority. When you are in the minority you can't dictate terms of the debate. I'm all for taking all things under conisderation but the minority must accept that not all of their ideas will be included in the final legislation. The problem is that the GOP is acting as if they are in still the majority.

[coyotes_geek]

Or reduce healthcare costs. See my first post.

#2 & #3 definitely need to happen. And I could live with #1 as long as there were iron-clad assurances that the public co-op would have to be self sustaining.

I'd also like to see what could be done in the way of encouraging private charitable health insurance providers.

Even then, I don't think that's enough to bridge the entire funding gap we're looking at today.

[EVAY]

#2 & #3 definitely need to happen. And I could live with #1 as long as there were iron-clad assurances that the public co-op would have to be self sustaining.

I'd also like to see what could be done in the way of encouraging private charitable health insurance providers.

Even then, I don't think that's enough to bridge the entire funding gap we're looking at today.

Now see, this is cool! Between Snake Boy and Coyote we have beginning.

I also like the idea of taxing junk food. I like it a lot! And I bet if we took Teysha Blue's suggestion of expert contributors, they would also be willing to tax junk food. One of the reasons junk food is so popular is that it is relatively cheap and readily available. Taxing it heavily would alter both of those.

[ElNono]

1.) Public Option/Co-Op: A governement non profit that would be required to be self sustaining after the initial start up costs.
2.) Allow private insurers to sell policies across states lines.
3.) Meaningful TORT Reform

Passes easily. Bipartisanship isn't that difficult.

Your point 1 is impossible without strict price controls in place, something no republican will vote for.
2 and 3 won't reduce costs in any meaningful way, so it's kind pointless...

[Stump]

Not trying to shoot down the idea, but how exactly would the junk food tax be enforced? Would there be a single tax rate that either would or would not be enforced, or would the tax vary based on how bad exactly foods were? Who would determine the standards of what falls in what category?

[SnakeBoy]

Even then, I don't think that's enough to bridge the entire funding gap we're looking at today.

True, healthcare costs will never fix medicare but they could extend the lifespan of the program. I think saving medicare permanently would require increasing the cost and increasing the age for eligibilty but that would destroy any chance for healthcare reform to pass so they would need to deal with that seperately. That's the same reason I left off pre-existing conditions coverage since it requires a mandate to work. So I would just stick with what could be passed and have a positive affect and deal with those issues seperately. Then again I have no power.

[jack sommerset]

Now see, this is cool! Between Snake Boy and Coyote we have beginning.

I also like the idea of taxing junk food. I like it a lot! And I bet if we took Teysha Blue's suggestion of expert contributors, they would also be willing to tax junk food. One of the reasons junk food is so popular is that it is relatively cheap and readily available. Taxing it heavily would alter both of those.

Having a job, paying taxes is a start. It's a start for me and millions of other Americans. You Give me some scared tactic example, the sky is falling bullshit of some hard working American getting some bad lotto medical need and for this, you want to give everyone free healthcare. Sorry not free, you want Americans that work pay for everyone. We will take your movie of the week case or cases like that, case by case. Son, if you want Americans to pay for other Americans healthcare you should want them to help.

Taxing junk food. :lol I don't want to pay for your healthcare and I don't want you telling me what I can eat by making me pay more! :lmao

[SnakeBoy]

I also like the idea of taxing junk food.

Don't need to tax it, just quit subsidizing it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Having a job, paying taxes is a start. It's a start for me and millions of other Americans. You Give me some scared tactic example, the sky is falling bullshit of some hard working American getting some bad lotto medical need and for this, you want to give everyone free healthcare. Sorry not free, you want Americans that work pay for everyone. We will take your movie of the week case or cases like that, case by case. Son, if you want Americans to pay for other Americans healthcare you should want them to help.

Taxing junk food. :lol I don't want to pay for your healthcare and I don't want you telling me what I can eat by making me pay more! :lmao

poor kids with irresponsible parents.. that was easy. How do you suggest we work the case by case edict jack?

just stop eating junk food jack..you're such an idiot..:lmao

[coyotes_geek]

Your point 1 is impossible without strict price controls in place, something no republican will vote for.
2 and 3 won't reduce costs in any meaningful way, so it's kind pointless...

If the public option is impossible without price controls then that's a pretty damning admission that the public option is incapable of providing health care as efficiently as private insurers. In other words, it defeats the entire point of having it in the first place.

As for 2 and 3 not reducing costs in a meaningful way, perhaps. But if the point is to make health care cheaper, and those are steps in the right direction they're still worth doing.


Not trying to shoot down the idea, but how exactly would the junk food tax be enforced? Would there be a single tax rate that either would or would not be enforced, or would the tax vary based on how bad exactly foods were? Who would determine the standards of what falls in what category?

If I'm not mistaken, don't all restaurants have to provide nutrional information for their menu items? It shouldn't be too hard for the FDA and/or some panel of nutrionalists to establish guidelines based on calories per serving size. Just come up with some system to rate the food and apply a tax on the food items that rate above it.


True, healthcare costs will never fix medicare but they could extend the lifespan of the program. I think saving medicare permanently would require increasing the cost and increasing the age for eligibilty but that would destroy any chance for healthcare reform to pass so they would need to deal with that seperately. That's the same reason I left off pre-existing conditions coverage since it requires a mandate to work. So I would just stick with what could be passed and have a positive affect and deal with those issues seperately. Then again I have no power.

What's probably going to happen with medicare is that congress will wait until we're right on the verge and then do the minimal package of tax increases / benefit cuts that will back us away from the cliff. Then they'll just ignore it until we're right back at the cliff again.

[doobs]

That's a killer because it'd necessarily lead to mandates. Unless there's no kind of price control mechanism (so insurers can ask for a price nobody would be willing to pay) and in that case, what's exactly the point?

To me:

1. Tort reform
2. Free trade on drugs (re-importation)
3. Allow individuals and employers to purchase insurance across state lines
4. Allow individuals and small businesses to band together increasing their bargaining power with insurance providers
5. Cut the government waste in bureocracies like the U.S. Department of Health and give that money saved to citizens who can use it to purchase health-care if they want to.

The problem with tort reform is that it accomplishes so little, and the cost of adding it to a bipartisan compromise would be huge. (What would Democrats get in return?)

I would add eliminating the healthcare benefits exemption in the tax code. You can call it a tax hike if you like, but it would certainly help make people more cost-conscious when making healthcare decisions.

I would also add means-tested healthcare vouchers for those who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own. Democrats would like that, I think.

[jack sommerset]

poor kids with irresponsible parents.. that was easy. How do you suggest we work the case by case edict jack?

just stop eating junk food jack..you're such an idiot..:lmao

:lmao

[jack sommerset]

It's sooooo funny that some people EXPECT working Americans to pay for everyone else.

And then on top of that, tell us what we can eat!

[coyotes_geek]

Taxing junk food. :lol I don't want to pay for your healthcare and I don't want you telling me what I can eat by making me pay more! :lmao

And those of us who actually take care of ourselves don't want the fatties we share insurance policies with driving up our premiums.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao


In a phone interview with CNN, Bauer, a Republican candidate for governor, said, "I wish I had used a different metaphor." Bauer told an audience Friday that people receiving government assistance are like "stray animals" because "they breed" and "don't know any better."

Were you quoted by CNN in the last couple of days?

[jack sommerset]

And those of us who actually take care of ourselves don't want the fatties we share insurance policies with driving up our premiums.

Ask the insurance companies to put you in a pool of people who don't eat twinkies. There is some reform.

[SnakeBoy]

And those of us who actually take care of ourselves don't want the fatties we share insurance policies with driving up our premiums.

I don't think he understands how health insurance works.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ask the insurance companies to put you in a pool of people who don't eat twinkies. There is some reform.

I see..your ideas are based on asking insurance companies nicely.. brilliant!

[coyotes_geek]

It's sooooo funny that some people EXPECT working Americans to pay for everyone else.

And then on top of that, tell us what we can eat!

Step 1 - Jack eats whatever he wants and gets fat.
Step 2 - Jack's obesity creates health issues for Jack.
Step 3 - Jack EXPECTS all the working Americans he shares an insurance policy with to cover the costs of treating his illnesses. Illnesses which were completely preventable.

[SnakeBoy]

2 and 3 won't reduce costs in any meaningful way, so it's kind pointless...

Then there is no reason for you to be so opposed to them.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Step 1 - Jack eats whatever he wants and gets fat.
Step 2 - Jack's obesity creates health issues for Jack.
Step 3 - Jack EXPECTS all the working Americans he shares an insurance policy with to cover the costs of treating his illnesses. Illnesses which were completely preventable.

Again, jack doesn't think things through.. his world is in black and white.

[jack sommerset]

Step 1 - Jack eats whatever he wants and gets fat.
Step 2 - Jack's obesity creates health issues for Jack.
Step 3 - Jack EXPECTS all the working Americans he shares an insurance policy with to cover the costs of treating his illnesses. Illnesses which were completely preventable.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not fat, I don't have a illness and I am not asking anyone to pay for me. Why would you make that up?

[jack sommerset]

Again, jack doesn't think things through.. his world is in black and white.

Then this idiot chimes in.....:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not fat, I don't have a illness and I am not asking anyone to pay for me. Why would you make that up?

it's called logic jack. ever heard of it moron?

[jack sommerset]

it's called logic jack. ever heard of it moron?

:lol Logic? You dumbasses have no clue what I eat, how my health is, what insurance coverage I have. Silly fucker.

[mogrovejo]

The problem with tort reform is that it accomplishes so little, and the cost of adding it to a bipartisan compromise would be huge. (What would Democrats get in return?)

Bi-partisanship. Obama was the one elected promising it - if he wants to deliver the pork, he must make some sacrifices. Of course Democrats will never throw one of their most precious constituencies and donor base under the bus, but they must start paying the political price for it.


I would add eliminating the healthcare benefits exemption in the tax code. You can call it a tax hike if you like, but it would certainly help make people more cost-conscious when making healthcare decisions.

Agreed, I forgot to add that one.


I would also add means-tested healthcare vouchers for those who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own. Democrats would like that, I think.

Isn't that a more cost-efficient Medicaid?

That's the elephant in the room, btw: what to do with Medicare and Medicaid.

[boutons_deux]

"are you saying that tort reform would make you reject health care reform"

perhaps. I'd have to see what we'd get back in return for letting ourselves be screwed with tort reform.

The effect of tort reform is, more than discouraging frivoulous cases (which judges should do anyway), is to slam the courthouse door on some/many legit claims, because the payment caps are too low for lawyers to invest their time in hoping to get a 30% contingency payment.

90K US dead EVERY YEAR due to avoidable medical errors, but the US freaks out about explosive underwear and shoes than killed nobody.

400K dead due to (mostly) cigarette-related smoking, but taxing a pack of cigarettes into the $30 range (with the tax going to govt health insurance payouts) would have Repugs and libertarians screaming "big govt".

$200B+/year and growing due to obesity alone, but somehow penalize people for being obese, fuck no. They have the "right" to be obese, and we love protecting their right by being suckered into the burden of paying for their self-inflicted diseases.

[coyotes_geek]

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not fat, I don't have a illness and I am not asking anyone to pay for me. Why would you make that up?

That's exactly the scenario that's occurring in our healthcare system today, millions and millions times over. You're the one harping that no one should be telling you what you can and can't eat, so I used you as the example. People eat whatever they want. Then they get fat because they're not eating healthy. Then they get sick because they're fat. Then the insurance company has to pay to treat them. Then the insurance company passes those medical costs along to all their members via their insurance premiums. It's one person claiming the right to eat whatever he wants and several people bearing the financial responsibility for the consequences of that decision. In other words, privatized "reward" and socialized "risk". That's why when it comes to insurance I don't think the "individual liberty" arguement is a valid one.

[doobs]

mogrovejo:

All I'm saying is that I would rather reform the tax code and pass Shadegg's Healthcare Reform Act. I think those are far more important than federal tort reform, which I think would be a costly victory for Republicans. (I'm not even sure what that would entail since most medical malpractice tort reform should properly be done at the state level.)

And, yes, the healthcare vouchers would be similar to Medicaid. But the purpose would be to achieve "full" coverage for those who are still priced out even after the reforms achieve lower costs. I prefer vouchers to be spent on private insurance to a government-run bureaucracy.

[Wild Cobra]

I would want a new bill to include:

Some measure of tort reform (not doing away with all possilbities of suits, but some limitations), and

A requirement that Insurance companies not be allowed to turn people down for coverage if they have 'a pre-existing condition'.

Tort reform is an absolute must. It is because of litigation that many profitable companies and good jobs have died here in the USA. I agree that lawsuits still need to be a recourse. Only, however, if there is a clear mistake involved. Most medical procedures have risks. As long as a doctor did his job and made no actual mistakes, then there should be no recourse for a patient. There is no way to keep costs under control without serious tort reform. Afterall, if we ever take that first step to government health plans, they will be less costly because we will have no ability to sue a government doctor.

As for companies turning down people for pre-conditions? Maybe. Like auto insurance, the price clearly needs to be based on a person's risk. Maybe we can allow a subsidy for congenital conditions, or not allow higher prices for circumstances outside an individuals control, but I will resist not making high risk people not pay more for the things they can avoid. Smokers, drug users, overweight people, etc. etc. If we truly want to bring prices down for responsible people, then it's not right to penalize them because of the irresponsible.

[jack sommerset]

That's exactly the scenario that's occurring in our healthcare system today, millions and millions times over. You're the one harping that no one should be telling you what you can and can't eat, so I used you as the example. People eat whatever they want. Then they get fat because they're not eating healthy. Then they get sick because they're fat. Then the insurance company has to pay to treat them. Then the insurance company passes those medical costs along to all their members via their insurance premiums. It's one person claiming the right to eat whatever he wants and several people bearing the financial responsibility for the consequences of that decision. In other words, privatized "reward" and socialized "risk".

You shouldn't tell someone what they should eat. Please keep this real. I am not harping, I am responding to you.

I am not paying more money to eat a fucking twinkie, man or drink a soda pop because some fat ass in San Antonio smokes, drinks, eats too much and never gets off his fat ass.

[Wild Cobra]

I contribute facts, not teabagger/Repug wet dreams

"Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail."

$30B fucking TOTAL! how much of that was fraud or frivolous?

Probably under 10%, so 10% of 1.5% is trivial, aka, a Repug/insurance company RED HERRING.
Does that include cases settled out of court? I doubt it. I know it doesn't cover the lost wages and revenues that have to be made up by charging other more. I know it doesn't cover all the extra procedures doctors due to keep the risk lower of being sued.

What other costs does your number not include?

What are the complete costs?

[boutons_deux]

"litigation that many profitable companies and good jobs have died"

link? (and not from Cato or Heritage or AEI or Fox Nutjob Network)

[George Gervin's Afro]

You shouldn't tell someone what they should eat. Please keep this real. I am not harping, I am responding to you.

I am not paying more money to eat a fucking twinkie man or drink a soda pop because some fat ass in San Antonio smoke,drinks, eats too much and never gets off his fat ass.

nobody is telling anyone what to eat jack. if you don't want to pay taxes on junk food then don't eat junk food.

[Wild Cobra]

e.g., some threshhold showing before a suit can be brought to limit frivolity, and some limits on payouts.
I am not for limiting damages. If there truly are damages, and a person it impacted for life, then I say damages include what ever it takes to treat the person at a minimum. If the individual requires a lifetime nanny, then a lifetime nanny is paid for, for example.

[Wild Cobra]

Your point 1 is impossible without strict price controls in place, something no republican will vote for.
2 and 3 won't reduce costs in any meaningful way, so it's kind pointless...
I agree with you on 1, but not 2 & 3. Still, 2 & 3 are required to get bipartisan support. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we agree or not.

[Wild Cobra]

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not fat, I don't have a illness and I am not asking anyone to pay for me. Why would you make that up?
And there is a major difference I think between the two camps.

I am a provider. I make good money and have no desire to be told what I can do with my life. However, if my tax dollars, or money is otherwise mandated by law, to subsidize someone elses health, then I want those being subsidized, to be required to live under strict dietary and health conditions.

Afterall, shouldn't I have a say as to how my money is being spent?

If you disagree with my conditions, then it forces me to say... Keep preexisting conditions!

[coyotes_geek]

You shouldn't tell someone what they should eat. Please keep this real. I am not harping, I am responding to you.

I am not paying more money to eat a fucking twinkie, man or drink a soda pop because some fat ass in San Antonio smokes, drinks, eats too much and never gets off his fat ass.

But you are paying more in insurance premiums because of that fat ass and the millions of people like him.

[jack sommerset]

But you are paying more in insurance premiums because of that fat ass and the millions of people like him.

I would be paying more if our government takes over plus I wouldn't get the service I get today.

Let the insurance companies sell out of state and prices will drop.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I would be paying more if our government takes over plus I wouldn't get the service I get today.

Let the insurance companies sell out of state and prices will drop.

Lucky for you the govt is not taking over.

[boutons_deux]

Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-preexisting-conditions/

What a bunch of spineless assholes.

"Hey, American, you got a disease? "Just go the emergency room" and fuck you!"

[coyotes_geek]

I would be paying more if our government takes over plus I wouldn't get the service I get today.

Let the insurance companies sell out of state and prices will drop.

I'm not advocating that the government take over. I'm advocating that the government tax an unhealthy behavior and return the proceeds from that tax directly to the people to help lower their health care costs. If people cut back on the fast food they eat, they get healthier and health insurance premiums for all of us go down. If people don't change the amount of fast food they eat, we're all getting junk food tax checks to help pay for health care costs.

[SnakeBoy]

That's the elephant in the room, btw: what to do with Medicare and Medicaid.

Well there is another elephant in the room...old people. There's alot of them and their population is growing fast....
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Age_distribution

Sure the 35 year old fat ass diabetic costs money but he's going to die early. It's those those healthy fuckers who insist on living 30 years past retirement that are the real problem.

[jack sommerset]

I'm not advocating that the government take over. I'm advocating that the government tax an unhealthy behavior and return the proceeds from that tax directly to the people to help lower their health care costs. If people cut back on the fast food they eat, they get healthier and health insurance premiums for all of us go down. If people don't change the amount of fast food they eat, we're all getting junk food tax checks to help pay for health care costs.

That's cool. I am saying there are plenty of ways to get the cost of insurance down without telling people what to eat. Taxing a big mac won't help the insurance companies. It will give more money to politicians to play with.

Which brings up another subject. Lets say I smoke. Would Blue Cross get the extra tax they charge me becuase they are my carrier?

[EVAY]

Well there is another elephant in the room...old people. There's alot of them and their population is growing fast....
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Age_distribution

Sure the 35 year old fat ass diabetic costs money but he's going to die early. It's those those healthy fuckers who insist on living 30 years past retirement that are the real problem.

LOL. And they got that way by not eating junk food!

It is hard not to laugh, but your observation regarding the aging of the population is correct, and that is some of the reasoning on the board behind the medicare cost issue. It will just go up phenomenally as the population ages. I think that is one of the reasons why Obama keeps saying that we can't afford NOT to reform health care. The issue always comes back to the fact that with an aging population, health care costs are gonna go through the roof.

One of the characteristics of Americans is that we don't like to be bothered about something until it is a crisis. Health care costs are awfully close to being a crisis now, but they WILL get worse.

[coyotes_geek]

Well there is another elephant in the room...old people. There's alot of them and their population is growing fast....
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Age_distribution

Sure the 35 year old fat ass diabetic costs money but he's going to die early. It's those those healthy fuckers who insist on living 30 years past retirement that are the real problem.

Yep. Between payroll tax increases and benefit cuts there should be little doubt as to which side will have to carry the larger burden. The geezers outnumber the rest of us and they turn out to vote in greater percentages. They're going to vote for whoever will stick it to the youngins' and our politician whores will respond accordingly.

[EVAY]

Having a job, paying taxes is a start. It's a start for me and millions of other Americans. You Give me some scared tactic example, the sky is falling bullshit of some hard working American getting some bad lotto medical need and for this, you want to give everyone free healthcare. Sorry not free, you want Americans that work pay for everyone. We will take your movie of the week case or cases like that, case by case. Son, if you want Americans to pay for other Americans healthcare you should want them to help.

Taxing junk food. :lol I don't want to pay for your healthcare and I don't want you telling me what I can eat by making me pay more! :lmao

What makes you think that is such an unheard of thing? Don't you know anyone who has lost a job due to ill health and then can't get coverage? Because I sure as hell do.

Did I ever suggest univeral converage in my post? No.

Your suggestion otherwise is a classic example of the way you respond in this forum. You use reductio ad absurdam reasoning to try to discredit any position that you cannot refute. I am reminded of the admonition given me by my older brother once a long time ago, to whit,
"It is considered bad form to agree to a battle of wits with the unarmed."

Therefore, I will try to stop responding to your posts.

[jack sommerset]

What makes you think that is such an unheard of thing? Don't you know anyone who has lost a job due to ill health and then can't get coverage? Because I sure as hell do.

Did I ever suggest univeral converage in my post? No.

Your suggestion otherwise is a classic example of the way you respond in this forum. You use reductio ad absurdam reasoning to try to discredit any position that you cannot refute. I am reminded of the admonition given me by my older brother once a long time ago, to whit,
"It is considered bad form to agree to a battle of wits with the unarmed."

Therefore, I will try to stop responding to your posts.

Probably best you stop responding or better yet, don't start threads asking for peoples opinions.

I have no clue what "univeral converage" is so how did I suggest it smart and witty guy.

[boutons_deux]

Jack doesn't seem to know that there are at least 6 job seekers for every job, blaming the other 5 for not having a job, for taking unemployment they paid for, and for not paying taxes.

Jack's world is a simple and stupid as he is.

[jack sommerset]

Jack doesn't seem to know that their are at least 6 job seekers for every job, blaming the other 5 for not having a job, for taking unemployment they paid for, and for not paying taxes.

Jack's world is a simple and stupid as he is.

You're an idiot.

[TeyshaBlue]

Jack's world is a simple and stupid as he is.

Irony much?:lmao:lmao

[baseline bum]

I would add eliminating the healthcare benefits exemption in the tax code. You can call it a tax hike if you like, but it would certainly help make people more cost-conscious when making healthcare decisions.

This is critical if this country is to operate under a for-profit health system, but I cannot see either party pushing this because it looks bad in commercials and in 2-minute answer segments on Nightline. I cannot picture a congressional candidate getting up on Meet the Press and giving a lecture on probability and telling how insurance is the pooling of risk for security against very unlikely and independent events. He'd have to argue that health insurance isn't like fire insurance (say. outside of California deserts), where you really can say fires are independent events, thanks to fire departments that are here to put your house out before it sets fire to the rest of the neighborhood. You'd have a hell of a case to make that government intervention in the form of untaxed health benefits artificially propping the insurance industry gives negative utility to workers, because it is after all a tax increase. Our media isn't setup to allow discussion that doesn't fit between commercial breaks.

[SnakeBoy]

This is critical if this country is to operate under a for-profit health system, but I cannot see either party pushing this because it looks bad in commercials and in 2-minute answer segments on Nightline. I cannot picture a congressional candidate getting up on Meet the Press and giving a lecture on probability and telling how insurance is the pooling of risk for security against very unlikely and independent events. He'd have to argue that health insurance isn't like fire insurance (say. outside of California deserts), where you really can say fires are independent events, thanks to fire departments that are here to put your house out before it sets fire to the rest of the neighborhood. You'd have a hell of a case to make that government intervention in the form of untaxed health benefits artificially propping the insurance industry gives negative utility to workers, because it is after all a tax increase. Our media isn't setup to allow discussion that doesn't fit between commercial breaks.

Tax breaks GOOD! Tax hikes BAD!

[ElNono]

If the public option is impossible without price controls then that's a pretty damning admission that the public option is incapable of providing health care as efficiently as private insurers. In other words, it defeats the entire point of having it in the first place.

There's nothing efficient about private insurers as far as reducing cost is concerned. That's exactly why you're reforming in the first place.

I would say the public option would be required to be profit-neutral, much like the postal service. They should also establish prices. I understand this would most likely destroy private insurers and that's ok with me. It will also probably limit the income of a majority of medical staff, and that's ok with me also. You can also move to a non-covered specialty with no price controls where you can try to make more money if there's enough of a market (ie: Plastic surgery). Same thing with private insurers, where they could offer a 'premium' service for a fee.
As far as drugs go, I would severely limit patent protection for them. Just let the company recoup costs and earn a capped max as surplus, then the drug turns into a generic free for all.

Now, there's nothing bipartisan about this proposal. I don't think even some democrats would like it.

[ElNono]

I cannot picture a congressional candidate getting up on Meet the Press and giving a lecture on probability and telling how insurance is the pooling of risk for security against very unlikely and independent events.

Statistically speaking, there's nothing very unlikely about healthcare after certain age. Which is normally when people get moved from the for-profit private system to the government run system. It's actually a great scam.