Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

[MarkL]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Interesting read there, thanks.

Of course the fact a war was ongoing over the last six years has to account for a lot of that added DOD health expense. The type of injuries coming out of this war (IEDs) have to be very expensive to treat, as well as the usual PTSD cases. So hard to fairly compare civilian health care costs to costs of a military at war. And yes, I saw only 42% of patients were active duty, but that doesn't reflect where each dollar goes. Treating paraplegics is more expensive than say, arthritis. I didn't read it that carefully, they may have shown more detail on expenses of active personel vs retired.

Looks like they've also had to promise better benefits in order to continue to attract enlistments. The real cost of the war shows up in stuff like this, the long term cost of providing all these benefits to service personel. Its nothing new, WWII had things like the GI bill and VA care of course. The expenses don't stop once the bullets do.


As far as medical expenses being that high, this is what I read,

"Enhanced PAY and benefits, including health care costs, increased costs to an average of $111,783 per person" This was for active personnel.

And I'd also refer anyone who thinks we don't need health care reform to this from the same report:

What is to be done?
•The “Status Quo”is Not an Option
•We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs
•GAO’s simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as
•Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or
•Raising federal taxes to 2 times today's level
•Faster Economic Growth Can Help, but It Cannot Solve the Problem
•Closing the current long-term fiscal gap based on reasonable assumptions would require real average annual economic growth in the double digit range every year for the next 75 years
•During the 1990s, the economy grew at an average 3.2 percent peryear
•As a result, we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem. Tough choices will be required

At times I feel that people fighting any change in health care are those at or approaching medicare age who simply have the attitude that as long as they get theirs, screw everyone else. The facts are, we can't survive without changes. The question is what is the best way to go about it?

Although you may be surprised by my previous post, I'm a fan of health care reform and agree with virtually everything you say above. However, the military doesn't seem to be the model...

[MarkL]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

This is a GREAT example of the Republican Spin and Lie Machine. By taking this paragraph out of context and then directly and intentionally misinterpreting it they have convinced many that private health care will become illegal.

Notice how the article and the poster conveniently forget to include the rest of the paragraph that is covered by the words "EXCEPT as provided in this paragraph..."

The REST of the paragraph says "If your OLD health care plan (eg which allows people to be dropped for having cancer) won't abide by the NEW law (which doesn't allow people to get dropped because they're sick) then you can't sign people up for it. If you're willing to abide by the new laws where people can't be dropped, signing people up is completely legal. The private system is intact.

More detail here. http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3096907.aspx
and here... http://www.nowpublic.com/world/bill-...urance-illegal

Note that I'm not saying the health care plan is good or bad. But let's at least get the facts straight. It annoys me immeasurably when the public is misled and votes based on intentional misinformation, commonly known as lies, instead of the Truth.

[jtabeb]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

This is a GREAT example of the Republican Spin and Lie Machine. By taking this paragraph out of context and then directly and intentionally misinterpreting it they have convinced many that private health care will become illegal.

Notice how the article and the poster conveniently forget to include the rest of the paragraph that is covered by the words "EXCEPT as provided in this paragraph..."

The REST of the paragraph says "If your OLD health care plan (eg which allows people to be dropped for having cancer) won't abide by the NEW law (which doesn't allow people to get dropped because they're sick) then you can't sign people up for it. If you're willing to abide by the new laws where people can't be dropped, signing people up is completely legal. The private system is intact.

More detail here. http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3096907.aspx
and here... http://www.nowpublic.com/world/bill-...urance-illegal

Note that I'm not saying the health care plan is good or bad. But let's at least get the facts straight. It annoys me immeasurably when the public is misled and votes based on intentional misinformation, commonly known as lies, instead of the Truth.

Since when has the "Ministry of Truth" ever told a lie?:mad:

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Although you may be surprised by my previous post, I'm a fan of health care reform and agree with virtually everything you say above. However, the military doesn't seem to be the model...

I mainly wanted to point out that "$118,000 per person" was not just for medical care. It included pay. At least that is the way I read it.

I'm sure the military model isn't the answer either. It's a shame we didn't start this process years ago. Now we are going to rush into something that really should have been well thought out. Of course even discussing health care reform in the past was political suicide. So I have to give Obama credit for bringing it to the forefront, warts and all.

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Yeah more "talking points" .

[Slimprofits]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Notice how the article and the poster conveniently forget to include the rest of the paragraph that is covered by the words "EXCEPT as provided in this paragraph..."

The poster, in other words me, didn't out of convenience or otherwise forget anything. I'm always searching for the truth. I've no loyalties to party. Keep the posts coming, but skip the editorial next time.

[MarkL]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

It's a shame we didn't start this process years ago. Now we are going to rush into something that really should have been well thought out. Of course even discussing health care reform in the past was political suicide. So I have to give Obama credit for bringing it to the forefront, warts and all.

It's been through years of thought by many, ever since the Clinton Administration made and failed at their run.

Oh... I'm sorry, you did say "well" thought out.

[rjwjr]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I mainly wanted to point out that "$118,000 per person" was not just for medical care. It included pay. At least that is the way I read it.

I'm sure the military model isn't the answer either. It's a shame we didn't start this process years ago. Now we are going to rush into something that really should have been well thought out. Of course even discussing health care reform in the past was political suicide. So I have to give Obama credit for bringing it to the forefront, warts and all.

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

That is a valid point I believe. Actually laws that exclude application to congresspeople but apply to everyone else should all be rescinded.

It would be fair if all elected officals in Washington only got the same healthcare coverage as the average citizen of DC if such could be determined, or maybe the same care as the 45M do now that do not have insurance. Most of the elected officials, as least Senators, are millionaires so let them pay whatever the market allows for people who do not have any insurance. I almost guarantee you it would evoke some changes in how healthcare is made available to everyone in the US. If you have health insurance keep up with what are the fees that you get charged and be glad for whatever coverage you have. If you don't have insurance and are not truly wealthy, then read the charges and weep and start considering bankruptcy if you are seriously ill.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

I don't know for certain, i.e. I have no references, but probably such already exists with some "think-tanks" or some group such as Kaiser-Permamente.

Does anyone know who wrote whatever is the current 1000-page law that is being considered? I've heard or read that most laws are written by lobbyist groups, but I don't know that is factual.

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

Yes, health care is a touchy subject on both sides of the fence. Either way they end up pissing off a large voting segment. Politicians tend to avoid anything even slightly inclined to produce controversy. After all, its not like they are really worried about the people's health here. This is about power and hanging on to it.

I think a commission to study health care is exactly what should have been done. Instead its left up to lobbyists and special interest groups, both only trying to push their own agendas. Problem is, these days almost everyone in a position of authority is very politicized. They owe their status and position to their connection with one of the two leading parties. So to find truly independent minded people to staff such a commission might be tough. People exist who could do it impartially. But would they want to become involved when it means stuff like we just had happen down here in Atlanta. A swastika was painted on a congressman's office sign.:eek:

There really has been very little real debate on this subject until now. I think some of the violent reaction has been simply in response to Obama trying to ram this through without much thought as to what the people want. I'd like to see a poll asking those against reform whether they are against ANY reform or just THIS plan.

[GeraldRiggs]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

TERM LIMITS!

Term limits would be a good start along with banning of lobbists on capital hill.

Just a thought...........has anyone thought about this? I'm a little paranoid of how hard our government is pushing this healthcare bill. However, what would it do...............overtime it would cause people to select the low cost solution which is............Obamacare.................Which means we would be paying less...but paying it to the government.........The government needs all the cash it can get to fund it's budget and it only gets worse in the future. Remember when Argentina went tits up? They confiscated peoples retirement accounts because they needed the money. This could be a way for our government to get our dollars under the pretense of a big hot button......healthcare reform.
JMHO

[jmdpet]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Does anyone know who wrote whatever is the current 1000-page law that is being considered? I've heard or read that most laws are written by lobbyist groups, but I don't know that is factual.

I'm not sure how contributions are defined here, but EJ just posted this web site:

http://maplight.org/map/us/bill/8471...committees/430

Note that there are several HR 3200 bills. I don't know enough about the legislative process to say why that is.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

• The bottom line is that your current health plan may not be as good as you think it is, and there is a good chance that it will not be around when you need it.

• Health-care reform comes in several different flavors these days, but the basic minimum is that it allows all people to buy health insurance regardless of medical history, and it provides subsidies to help poor and middle-income families buy health insurance. That means that if you get sick and lose your job, you will still be able to get health care. That is something that everyone should be in favor of -- because everyone can get sick and lose his or her job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081100048.html


Decent discussion about the shortfalls of the current health insurance system by Simon Johnson and James Kwak that I think is worth reading and thinking about.

[0tr]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

...

We need Canadian-style socialized medicine in America, and the time for it is now! Yes, there will be higher taxes, but over all, the cost of living with socialized medicine will be much lower in America...... Think about it. Think, think, think!

Having worked in both the US and Canada, I much prefer the Canadian system. The insurance payment calculations were clear and done with the tax filing. No paying twice, once for myself, and once for medicare tax. This is a big problem here. When presenting at an ER or GP, the system was very simple. No bs about presenting the ssn (in Canada, sin) number.

I'm not convinced about higher taxes if it were truly Canadian style. One reason the US system is so expensive is the rot at the top (Scrushi types). Since this is US we're talking about, it could be muy expensivo.

One nice thing about Canada, Great Britain, and some other parliamentary systems, is that the elected representatives can actually crush lobbyist type activity, at least some times. In the US, the parasites run the system.

The only reason we don't have Canadian style is vested interests pulling out $Billions, and they lobby hard.

I know it can be done better, I've seen it.