Washington "shall" control your healthcare

[Dr.Who]

I couldn't have said it much better than this, so I'll save my comments until this thread is going:

"The King James version of the Bible runs more than 600 pages and is crammed with celestial regulations. Newton's Principia Mathematica distilled many of the rules of physics in a mere 974 pages.

Neither have anything on Nancy Pelosi's new fiendishly entertaining health-care opus, which tops 1,900 pages.

So curl up by a fire with a fifth of whiskey and just dive in.

But drink quickly. In the new world, your insurance choices will be tethered to decisions made by people with Orwellian titles ("1984" was only 268 pages!) like the "Health Choices Commissioner" or "Inspector General for the Health Choices Administration."

You will, of course, need to be plastered to buy Pelosi's fantastical proposition that 450,000 words of new regulations, rules, mandates, penalties, price controls, taxes and bureaucracy will have the transformative power to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending . . . ."

It's going to take some time to deconstruct this lengthy masterpiece, but as you flip through the pages of the House bill, you will notice the word "regulation" appears 181 times. "Tax" is there 214 times. "Fees," 103 times. As we all know, nothing says "affordability" like higher taxes and fees.

The word "shall" - as in "must" or "required to" - appears over 3,000 times. The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase "mind our own freaking business." Not once.

To vote for the bill, a legislator must believe a $1 trillion price tag is "revenue neutral," or that it alleviates any of the pain higher costs bring to the average American. This would require alcohol.

Real competition, as far as anyone can tell, is antithetical to the authors of this bill. Remember, you can purchase oranges from Florida and whiskey from Kentucky, yet you're prohibited from buying health insurance from anywhere outside your state . . . so sayeth Nancy Pelosi.

Instead of creating a new market with interstate trade, what we get is the institution of the pleasant-sounding "Health Insurance Exchange," which exists, it seems, only to accommodate a non-competitive, government-run insurance option.

Now, finding a name for a state-run program without offending the lingering capitalistic sensibilities of bourgeoisie has been problematic. So Pelosi went with the innocuous "consumer option" - known for a fleeting moment as the "competitive option" and popularly as the "public option." Whatever your preference is, it's the option that leads to a single-payer insurance program.

Democrats say we can save billions by funding a plan that uses billions of wasted tax dollars from another public plan that we already supplement with billions. Make sense?

In actuality, we pay for all this by "cost sharing," or "sharing the cost" of insuring everyone through higher prices and taxes. But no fear. The legislation taxes "the rich." The bill doesn't index the tax to inflation so more of you will be on the hook as inflation rises due to the tragically irresponsible behavior of Congress and the White House. The rich - many of them small-business owners - are already set to see their rates go up in 2010.

Hey, who needs those jerks to create real jobs when we have Washington pretending to do it?

All of this, as Madame Speaker says, constitutes a "a historic moment for our nation and families." True. No legislation in modern American history compares when in comes to injecting itself into the everyday decisions of the citizen.

And few can compete with its deception. The bill's intentions are cloaked in euphemisms and it is teeming with ulterior motives, all cobbled together in closed-door meetings where industry payoffs are offered using taxpayer dollars to facilitate a power grab of unprecedented cost.

All of it, rolled right into a neat 1,900 pages."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/30/masterfleece_theater_98951.html

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Gee.....no bias, from that site!!!!​

Fox News Is Biased? So What?​

​

 

[1848!]

Now, finding a name for a state-run program without offending the lingering capitalistic sensibilities of bourgeoisie has been problematic. So Pelosi went with the innocuous "consumer option" - known for a fleeting moment as the "competitive option" and popularly as the "public option." Whatever your preference is, it's the option that leads to a single-payer insurance program.

The traditional republican attack to every democratic bill for the past 60 years. You can't really argue with what the democrats are actually doing so you talk about what the bill might lead to. This is essentially the same argument against FDR's new deal and the fear of the "slippery slope to socialism" that hasn't manifested in the in the over half a century since.

Almost no one in America right now is supporting single payer, the public option isn't single payer, lets start talking about what repercussions the bill will actually have.

This article does nothing more than preach to a conservative crowd that has an unwavering faith in the free market. To everyone else who has somewhat of an open mind when it comes to the governments role in the economy, this article presents no sort of a convincing argument.

 

[Dr.Who]

The traditional republican attack to every democratic bill for the past 60 years. You can't really argue with what the democrats are actually doing so you talk about what the bill might lead to. This is essentially the same argument against FDR's new deal and the fear of the "slippery slope to socialism" that hasn't manifested in the in the over half a century since.

Almost no one in America right now is supporting single payer, the public option isn't single payer, lets start talking about what repercussions the bill will actually have.

This article does nothing more than preach to a conservative crowd that has an unwavering faith in the free market. To everyone else who has somewhat of an open mind when it comes to the governments role in the economy, this article presents no sort of a convincing argument.

It is intellectually sheltered thinking to be unaware that the intention of democrats and our president is to usher in single payer through the public option.

 

[top gun]

Riiiight Washington will be the problem.

Click on the cartoon below to enlarge it and you'll see the real problem.

Don't anyone fall for the Insurance Companies organized fraud & trickery to keep their pockets fat while allowing Americans to suffer and many times just die.

 

[1848!]

It is intellectually sheltered thinking to be unaware that the intention of democrats and our president is to usher in single payer through the public option.

Unless you state your reasons with backing credible evidence your effectively proving my point.

Beyond that you'd have to prove to me how universal healthcare would ever pass through congress considering the trouble Obama's had selling the public.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Unless you state your reasons with backing credible evidence your effectively proving my point.

Beyond that you'd have to prove to me how universal healthcare would ever pass through congress considering the trouble Obama's had selling the public.

On August 11, this year Obama said - "I have not said that I was a single payer supporter." in New Hampshire at a town hall meeting. This is in direct conflict to numerous earlier statements, recorded audibly and in writing, similar to one made in 2003 at a campaign rally: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan."

In 2007, he said "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process."

And in 2008 during his presidential campaign ‘If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system. … So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.’

Coupled with a myriad of statements by Pelossi, Reid, and numerous other prominent Democrats, it is exactly credible evidence of their intent for the ultimate outcome of a public "option".

They want control, pure and simple. There are numerous ways of solving the health availability and cost issues without Washington becoming centrally involved. But none of them would serve their ultimate purpose of simply gaining power.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

The traditional republican attack to every democratic bill for the past 60 years. You can't really argue with what the democrats are actually doing so you talk about what the bill might lead to. This is essentially the same argument against FDR's new deal and the fear of the "slippery slope to socialism" that hasn't manifested in the in the over half a century since.

Almost no one in America right now is supporting single payer, the public option isn't single payer, lets start talking about what repercussions the bill will actually have.

This article does nothing more than preach to a conservative crowd that has an unwavering faith in the free market. To everyone else who has somewhat of an open mind when it comes to the governments role in the economy, this article presents no sort of a convincing argument.

FDR's "New Deal" was an experiment that an elitist president attempted to apply to what he considered to be nothing more than lab rats, the American people. When each step of the experiment failed, he would toss out the idea and the expert that had given him the idea. Inevitably, this experimentation elongated the "Great Depression". If it wasn't for WWII FDR would have gone down in history as a failure.

Regarding the facts: It is hard to pull facts out against a plan that lacks clarity and describes elements of a strategy in such vague terms. This plan, like its predecessors is very loosely worded, so they can later make it up as they go along. The clarity comes in the reality that any single payer system will still be administered by 2 or 3 of the major health insurance providers just as Medicare and Medicaid are today.

We need two much shorter plans. One that reforms Health Insurance by lowering the state regulations on interstate competition, creating tort reform, and dealing with pre-existing conditions. The other deals with Healthcare Reform by focusing more energy on true preventative medicine which involves 256bit scanning, RNA/DNA profiling, and the elimination of defensive medicine.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The traditional republican attack to every democratic bill for the past 60 years. You can't really argue with what the democrats are actually doing so you talk about what the bill might lead to. This is essentially the same argument against FDR's new deal and the fear of the "slippery slope to socialism" that hasn't manifested in the in the over half a century since.

Hell....you don't have to go, back, that far!!!​

"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." — Rep. Dick Armey (Republican, Texas)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is intellectually sheltered thinking to be unaware that the intention of democrats and our president is to usher in single payer through the public option.

Yeah....the Status Quo makes so-much-more-sense.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

They want control, pure and simple. There are numerous ways of solving the health availability and cost issues without Washington becoming centrally involved. But none of them would serve their ultimate purpose of simply gaining power.

....At least, that's what Porky Limbaugh insists....

"All of a sudden, we hear about the horrors of Canadian socialized medicine (even though, since hospitals and doctors are mostly private, Canada doesn’t even have socialized medicine – they have single-payer, which only deals with financing.)"

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Health insurance companies are aggressively raising premiums at the same time they are fighting to stop the creation of public non-profit funds that would give them serious competition.

This foolish effort to pad profits before any healthcare overhaul gets passed ought to backfire. The so-called public option was already gathering support despite claims by conservatives that it would lead to a government takeover of health care.

Small businesses face an average premium increase of 15 percent for 2010, according to The New York Times. Separately, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which run Medicare, said that premiums for Medicare Advantage plans -- those are private plans for people also enrolled in regular Medicare -- are going up 25 percent.

With costs rising like this, it is remarkable how many supporters the insurers have in Congress.

The for-profit insurance companies are a unique feature of the U.S. health care system. No other developed country has them, and their existence is a key reason Americans spend a much higher share of their national income on health care -- while leaving many people uninsured.

T.R. Reid, a long-time Washington Post correspondent, lays out those details in a fascinating new book, "The Healing of America." Reid worked in Post bureaus in London and Tokyo, and he and his family had received health care under the British and Japanese systems. During his research, he traveled to many other countries seeking treatment for a bum shoulder he had seriously injured years earlier while in the Navy.

The result is a tale that highlights the positive and negative aspects of other systems. By almost every measure, the healthcare outcomes are better in other developed countries than in the United States, while the costs are lower."

 

[Dr.Who]

Riiiight Washington will be the problem.

Click on the cartoon below to enlarge it and you'll see the real problem.

Don't anyone fall for the Insurance Companies organized fraud & trickery to keep their pockets fat while allowing Americans to suffer and many times just die.

The insurance companies only make about a 4% profit - lower than many other industries.

No American suffers and dies as a result of lack of insurance because all Americans have access to health care whether they have insurance or not.

keeping business from engaging in fraud and trickery is the job of the government. Have they failed to do their job?

 

[Dr.Who]

Unless you state your reasons with backing credible evidence your effectively proving my point.

I said:

"the intention of democrats and our president is to usher in single payer through the public option."

Is this credible enough?

"A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." Obama

Still don't believe that the public option is a trojan horse for single payer?

Here is a link to four video clips of democratic leaders saying that the public option is intended to usher in single payer:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/03...ic-option-is-a-trojan-horse-for-single-payer/

 

[top gun]

The insurance companies only make about a 4% profit - lower than many other industries.

No American suffers and dies as a result of lack of insurance because all Americans have access to health care whether they have insurance or not.

keeping business from engaging in fraud and trickery is the job of the government. Have they failed to do their job?

And a grocery store only makes a few cents on most everything they sell... MEANS NOTHING AND YOU KNOW IT!

The fact is that grocery stores can do this because people always have to eat and it all adds up. Same thing with rip off health insurance companies. They have the monopoly and they have the huge amount of people. So 4% (and it's usually higher) is an ASTRONOMICALLY, MONSTROUSLY, OUT OF THIS WORLD, HUGER THAN HUGE, UNBELIEVABLE amount of money!!!

And we've already posted many times the independent studies that clearly document that lack of health insurance does cause death. The indigent care thing is in no way on any equal plain with real healthcare... but you know that too.

You will simply say anything to keep people away from care and insurance companies between the patient and his or her doctor... and that my friend is pretty disgusting.

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance
Sep 17, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

The findings come amid a fierce debate over Democrats' efforts to reform the nation's $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry by expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.

President Barack Obama's has made the overhaul a top domestic policy priority, but his plan has been besieged by critics and slowed by intense political battles in Congress, with the insurance and healthcare industries fighting some parts of the plan.

The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.

An similar study in 1993 found those without insurance had a 25 percent greater risk of death, according to the Harvard group. The Institute of Medicine later used that data in its 2002 estimate showing about 18,000 people a year died because they lacked coverage.

Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured, Himmelstein said. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.

Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.

Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler said the findings show that without proper care, uninsured people are more likely to die from complications associated with preventable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

Some critics called the study flawed.

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank that backs a free-market approach to health care, said researchers overstated the death risk and did not track how long subjects were uninsured.

Woolhandler said that while Physicians for a National Health Program supports government-backed coverage, the Harvard study's six researchers closely followed the methodology used in the 1993 study conducted by researchers in the federal government as well as the University of Rochester in New York.

The Harvard researchers analyzed data on about 9,000 patients tracked by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics through the year 2000. They excluded older Americans because those aged 65 or older are covered by the U.S. Medicare insurance program.

"For any doctor ... it's completely a no-brainer that people who can't get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things that health care is supposed to prevent," said Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts.