The Death of the Public Option
Willow
My own thoughts living in a country with a single payer public system,
is that this vote means the eventual economic collapse of the USA.
Without digging deep, it seems that the health insurance industry has
been granted a mandate to demand individuals insure using their
services with the same degree of oversight as we have seen in the
banking and financial industry. No doubt many large bonuses will be
awarded for the noble efforts in lobbying Congress to obtain this
result. And massive salaries as well. It so reminds me of that old
adge - "When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is hard to
remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp". It
seems the swamp remains, the alligators are ready to have a big dinner
and the normal person is simply tossed out as so much alligator feed.
So the healthy must now insure, but there seems no corresponding need
for insurance companies to drop rates or even insure those who really
need it - talks of pools and opting in no matter.
Sad, for it means that American industry will continue to be
challenged by economic facts. Without health care offered by teh
state, with all in and a single payer, the costs will dramatically
increase, depending only on the need for bonuses of the major
players. They (the health insurers) will soon be too big to fail.
Granted, I ahve not read the thing and rely only upon reports on
various sites. But we do have the lessons learnt in the financial
sector to serve as a guide.
It seems the opponents with only a minority managed to block this
again. Simply not understandible. Also not understandible is the
lack of any pressure or much of anything else from the White House.
While I supported Obama, I did state that one had to dig hard to find
what his actual policies were. The smoke and mirrors of "Change" was
wonderfully used to secure his election, not that McCain would have
done any better. Still, the promise is gone, to a large degree.
Afganistan, Iraq, health care, the economy, the failed mortgage
policy, the lack of baning reguilation and consumer protection,
torture. This president of so much promise at the state seems to have
shown the same strong attachment to beltway brokers as did Bush 2.
Not as grating on the nerves, but the facade of change has simply
disappeared - or so it seems to me. There is only so much that we can
blame Bush 2 for, and hwile he did indeed start far too much of the
mess, Obama seems totally unable(or unwilling) to clean the stables.
Makes me wish for a return of Bill Clinton...
Willow
d
Stanley Moore
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:8bb6c1a7-5e7e-4940...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
What are you talking about? It seems the latest idea is to expand the
existing program of Medicare to a lower age. Medicare is a single payer
system and many are cheering this development as a victory for single payer.
The minority you are bemoaning are Democrats. The Dems have solid majorities
in both houses of Congress and can pass anything they want without a single
Republican vote. The problem is the Democrats cannot agree among themselves
as to what they want to pass. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What are you talking about? It seems the latest idea is to expand the
>existing program of Medicare to a lower age. Medicare is a single payer
>system and many are cheering this development as a victory for single payer.
>
>The minority you are bemoaning are Democrats. The Dems have solid majorities
>in both houses of Congress and can pass anything they want without a single
>Republican vote. The problem is the Democrats cannot agree among themselves
>as to what they want to pass. Take care
Many who don't live in the U.S., and unfortunately some who do, don't
understand how Congress works and about the separation of powers.
The Republicans never had 60 votes in the Senate when they were in
power.
Wes Struebing
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
<death of the public option bemoaned>
>>
>
>What are you talking about? It seems the latest idea is to expand the
>existing program of Medicare to a lower age. Medicare is a single payer
>system and many are cheering this development as a victory for single payer.
>
Well, sort of, Stanley. Problem is, it is being associated with a
trigger of sorts, and while it supposedly would go into effect next
year, it will not be subsidized (as "regular" Medicare is, now), which
means those who would most benefit by it immediately will most likely
NOT be able to afford it. And that trigger part makes it iffy for
2013/2014 when it WOUOLD become subsidized.
>The minority you are bemoaning are Democrats. The Dems have solid majorities
>in both houses of Congress and can pass anything they want without a single
>Republican vote. The problem is the Democrats cannot agree among themselves
>as to what they want to pass. Take care
Well, to be accurate, because of the "differing" Democratic views, the
only pace it can pass is the House without Democratic lockstep. That's
one of the reasons that the compromises we've seen in the Senate bill
have come about - to avoid filibuster and a couple senators holding
the entire legislative process hostage.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Annie C
"Wes Struebing" <str...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3hb3i51vqrl0b9v6m...@4ax.com...
I've been too busy to keep up with all the changes and compomises! That's
become a full time job...
But what Haward Dean said last night on Rachel Maddow show was that the
early sign-ups for Medicare by those 55-64 could begin sooner than some of
the other changes. Like earlyish in 2010
I hope that some of whatever is hammered out in the end will be beneicial. I
am underwhelmed. It is certainly not what many of us were expecting when
thinking of "sweeping health care reforms." My own opinion is that it was a
really obvious strategic blunder to begin in the middle! When one knows that
compromises will be necessary, you start with more than you what you want
and make concessions as you go-- You do not give it away before the serious
negotiating takes place. The Obama Dem team started in the middle or to the
right of middle. Sheesh. I am referring the public option. The other
nonsense were all the calls for "bipartisanship." How can you be bipartisan
when the other side is nothing but obstructionist? Certainly gave the
insurance industry lobbyists even more time to work on them all, both sides
of the aisle.. Sad to say, but I think the health insurance biz will profit
more than any of us ever will from the finished product. They've won. Let
the bonuses begin!
Annie
Brian
wrote:
>Well, to be accurate, because of the "differing" Democratic views, the
>only pace it can pass is the House without Democratic lockstep. That's
>one of the reasons that the compromises we've seen in the Senate bill
>have come about - to avoid filibuster and a couple senators holding
>the entire legislative process hostage.
The only reason it passed in the house was because of the power of the
Speaker to enforce lockstep. I suspect that some Democrats who are in
particularly difficult districts were given permission to vote against
the bill.
Bud
>
> The only reason it passed in the house was because of the power of the
> Speaker to enforce lockstep. I suspect that some Democrats who are in
> particularly difficult districts were given permission to vote against
> the bill.
The whole process is sickening to the average populace who does have to
work for a living. They, and even I if I were young and working, would
be glad to pay the extra tax to have health insurance. A single payer
option is the best that any one can hope for. It is up to the average
*joe* to start the march of letters and literal marching on the HQ's
of their senators home states demanding loudly that they change their
loyalties from insurance companies to the people who send them there
to Washington to do the peoples bidding.
--
Bud
Willow
I agree.
For comparison, these are the monthly premiusm here in BC, one of only
two provinces that actually charge a monthly premium for health care:
"Monthly rates are $54 for one person, $96 for a family of two and
$108 for a family of three or more. Effective January 1, 2010 monthly
rates will change to $57 for one person, $102 for a family of two and
$114 for a family of three or more."
Everyone qualifies, and assistance is offered for those with a low
income. Pre-existing conditions welcome.
I contrast that with the following:
"The average cost for a family health insurance policy topped $10,000
for the first time this year, although premium costs rose at their
slowest rate since 2000, a closely watched survey of employers
released Wednesday shows."
Frankly, although our taxes are higher here, they are not *that* much
higher....
We don't die without insurance nor go bankrupt.
Willow
ggg
and the surplus that he left us. However, I wasn't able to re-finance
my house nor my summer apartment until now. Interest rates are down
and we were able to take advantage of them. I'm now paying 485 a month
less than I had been.
Barry
ggg
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:45:36 -0600, "Stanley Moore"
>
All they needed was 51.
Barry
Stanley Moore
"ggg" <bmvo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3dbd156-72fe-4c1e...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Barry
-------------------------------------------------
Senate rules allow unlimited debate.and some senators take advantage of that
to filibuster, i.e talk and talk. You need 60 votes to stop devbate so that
an issue can come to the floor. Back in the day filibusters used to be
fairly rare but nowadays partisanship is o vile that they use it all the
time thus it takes 60 votes to stop debate and bring a bill to to be voted
on which then required 51 to pass. . The Republicans never had 60 and many
of their bills never got to the floor for this reason, most notably thye
tried in 2006 I think to abolish the inheritance tax by coupling it with an
increase in the minimum wage but it failed due to filibuster. The Dems now
have 60 Senate votes so can pass anything they want with no Repiblican votes
provided theye can agree amonst themselves. Take care
Stanley Moore
"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1c66i51ubko7qa8dq...@4ax.com...
The House rules do not allow for filibuster so it takes a simpkle makority
to pass something. Take care
Stanley Moore
"Bud" <B...@bud.invalid> wrote in message
news:7oich6F...@mid.individual.net...
The average joe doesn't send their representatives to Congress. The special
interests do by giving campaign money. The citizens merely vote but it takes
lots of money to get elected and stay elected. They know that and pay
attention to the buttered side of the bread not to letters from citizens.
In any case polls show most Americans are happy with whay they have and fear
rocking the boat. Some 80% are insured one way or another and are content
with what they have. I think Congress would better serve the public by
concentrating on the 20% that are un or under insured rather than tinkering
with the whole syste,. Take care
Wes Struebing
wrote:
In a sense. You are right, though, that Pelosi had to twist some arms
to get the 218 she needed. As it turned out the vote was:
In the final tally, 219 Democrats voted for the legislation, and 39
voted against it.
Rep. Joe Cao (R-Louisiana) was the only Republican who voted in favor
of the bill.
Hardly lockstep. It's like Will Rogers used to say. "I'm not a
member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
;-)
Wes Struebing
Well, to be accurate, Stanley, they only have to agree among
themselves enough to allow an up-or-down vote. At that point they can
do what they want. But there are actually only 58 Democrats. There
are 2 "Independents" whose political spectra could hardly be farther
apart.
Brian
wrote:
>All they needed was 51.
>
>Barry
As I've said, many Americans don't understand how government works.
Stanley Moore does.
If what you said were true, there would be very little trouble getting
the Democratic agenda passed. Do you have a bizarre idea that the
Republicans could pass legislation with 51 votes but Democrats need
60?
Brian
wrote:
Do you think that the insurance costs what the premiums are?
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The average joe doesn't send their representatives to Congress. The special
>interests do by giving campaign money. The citizens merely vote but it takes
>lots of money to get elected and stay elected. They know that and pay
>attention to the buttered side of the bread not to letters from citizens.
>
>In any case polls show most Americans are happy with whay they have and fear
>rocking the boat. Some 80% are insured one way or another and are content
>with what they have. I think Congress would better serve the public by
>concentrating on the 20% that are un or under insured rather than tinkering
>with the whole syste,. Take care
Most Congressional districts have been apportioned so that the
incumbents are usually safe. This works both ways and both parties are
guilty of it.
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1c66i51ubko7qa8dq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:32:58 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, to be accurate, because of the "differing" Democratic views, the
>>>only pace it can pass is the House without Democratic lockstep. That's
>>>one of the reasons that the compromises we've seen in the Senate bill
>>>have come about - to avoid filibuster and a couple senators holding
>>>the entire legislative process hostage.
>>
>> The only reason it passed in the house was because of the power of the
>> Speaker to enforce lockstep. I suspect that some Democrats who are in
>> particularly difficult districts were given permission to vote against
>> the bill.
>
>The House rules do not allow for filibuster so it takes a simpkle makority
>to pass something. Take care
Yes and that is why some of the endangered members could be protected
in the vote. It didn't matter if it only passed by 1 vote out of 435.
Brian
wrote:
>and the surplus that he left us. However, I wasn't able to re-finance
>my house nor my summer apartment until now. Interest rates are down
>and we were able to take advantage of them. I'm now paying 485 a month
>less than I had been.
>
>Barry
Which was illusionary because it was based on the tech bubble which
was bursting at the end of his term.
Brian
>The whole process is sickening to the average populace who does have to
>work for a living. They, and even I if I were young and working, would
>be glad to pay the extra tax to have health insurance. A single payer
>option is the best that any one can hope for. It is up to the average
>*joe* to start the march of letters and literal marching on the HQ's
>of their senators home states demanding loudly that they change their
>loyalties from insurance companies to the people who send them there
>to Washington to do the peoples bidding.
Those who are young and working and working but don't think they need
insurance have already made the choice by not purchasing insurance.
My personal view is that they are foolish to make that choice but many
do. the plan of the Democrats is to force them into buying insurance
to subsidize the system when they don't want it. I doubt if many
realize it.
Stanley Moore
In most cases , no. I am retired and have to pay $300 per month to keep my
insurance. The company I workde for claims they pay considerable more ,
something like $500 per month to keep up my insurance.
Stanley Moore
Darting the Bush years we heard pleading after pleading for an an or down
vote but the Democrats thwarted the desires of the majority. Now the
opposite is true but the Dems have 60 votes and can get their agenda passed
regardless of the opposition. Take care
Stanley Moore
How many times did we hear Republican pleading for an up or down vote in the
past admisinstration. Republicnas neeer had anywhere near 61 botes to force
an up or down vote tht they cold win. . Take care
Wes Struebing
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:71s8i5d9a174nvq2t...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:22:15 -0800 (PST), ggg <bmvo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All they needed was 51.
>>>
>>>Barry
>>
>> As I've said, many Americans don't understand how government works.
>> Stanley Moore does.
>>
>> If what you said were true, there would be very little trouble getting
>> the Democratic agenda passed. Do you have a bizarre idea that the
>> Republicans could pass legislation with 51 votes but Democrats need
>> 60?
>
>Darting the Bush years we heard pleading after pleading for an an or down
>vote but the Democrats thwarted the desires of the majority. Now the
>opposite is true but the Dems have 60 votes and can get their agenda passed
>regardless of the opposition. Take care
As has been pointed out previously, Stanley - ONLY if the Democrats
AND the Independents voted in lockstep. The only party in recent
memory that has ever voted in lockstep (and continues to do so) is the
Republican Party.
As an aside, while the Dems DID exercise (or threaten to) the
filibuster, they rarely did, AND the Republicans threatened "the
Nuclear Option" until cooler Republican heads prevailed. Had they
passed that option, we would already have healthcare reform passed
because no one could filibuster. (and people like Lieberman would not
be able to wield inordinate power)
Wes Struebing
...plus what you used to pay in as well. (when I was employed, the
company said they paid something like 65% - or more - of the actual
premium)
Wes Struebing
wrote:
You're probably right, though most everyone I pal around with (grin)
DO know, and are NOT happy. It's just more money into the insurance
coffers with no regulation of premiums.
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Darting the Bush years we heard pleading after pleading for an an or down
>vote but the Democrats thwarted the desires of the majority. Now the
>opposite is true but the Dems have 60 votes and can get their agenda passed
>regardless of the opposition. Take care
There some people who seem to believe that the rules should change
depending on who is in power.
Brian
Actually this addressed to Willow who was comparing premiums of
$114/month presumably in Canada to the full costs of U.S. policies
without considering the taxes that support the system.
Brian
wrote:
>In a sense. You are right, though, that Pelosi had to twist some arms
>to get the 218 she needed. As it turned out the vote was:
>In the final tally, 219 Democrats voted for the legislation, and 39
>voted against it.
>Rep. Joe Cao (R-Louisiana) was the only Republican who voted in favor
>of the bill.
>
>Hardly lockstep. It's like Will Rogers used to say. "I'm not a
>member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
>;
And she would have twisted more had she needed to. It was lockstep
enough to achieve the desired end. There are a lot of Democrats who
will be in trouble at least partly because of this. No point in making
it worse by involving more.
Stanley Moore
I wouldn't say the Dems rarely used the filibuster. Many federal judgships
nominated by Bush were thwarted by the filibuster threat. As for health care
the nuclear option may still be used to pass health care. Takebcare
Pogonip
>
> Actually this addressed to Willow who was comparing premiums of
> $114/month presumably in Canada to the full costs of U.S. policies
> without considering the taxes that support the system.
If only it were that simple, Brian. Truth is, U.S. taxpayers, you and
me, are already supporting the health industry. Non-profit providers,
which include many if not most hospitals, pay no taxes, but we provide
police, fire, health department, building inspectors, and myriad other
tax-supported services. We subsidize Medicare Advantage insurance
companies, who get over and above Medicare payment. That may be
repealed soon, and I hope that it is since it's grossly unfair.
Tax-payers reimburse providers for services to the indigent, which
includes prisoners as well as the impoverished. We subsidize medical
schools, nursing schools, schools for medical technicians through a
variety of programs. We subsidize drug companies. We are paying
through the nose for our health care system, but we are not getting our
money's worth, and won't until administration costs are reduced, and
profits are brought into reasonable levels. There's also the matter of
overpayment, through both incompetence and fraud.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Brian
wrote:
>As has been pointed out previously, Stanley - ONLY if the Democrats
>AND the Independents voted in lockstep. The only party in recent
>memory that has ever voted in lockstep (and continues to do so) is the
>Republican Party.
Democrats blocked many judicial nominees by being in lockstep.
>
>As an aside, while the Dems DID exercise (or threaten to) the
>filibuster, they rarely did, AND the Republicans threatened "the
>Nuclear Option" until cooler Republican heads prevailed. Had they
>passed that option, we would already have healthcare reform passed
>because no one could filibuster. (and people like Lieberman would not
>be able to wield inordinate power)
The Democrats have also threatened to use the nuclear option.
Brian
wrote:
>If only it were that simple, Brian. Truth is, U.S. taxpayers, you and
>me, are already supporting the health industry. Non-profit providers,
>which include many if not most hospitals, pay no taxes, but we provide
>police, fire, health department, building inspectors, and myriad other
>tax-supported services. We subsidize Medicare Advantage insurance
>companies, who get over and above Medicare payment. That may be
>repealed soon, and I hope that it is since it's grossly unfair.
>Tax-payers reimburse providers for services to the indigent, which
>includes prisoners as well as the impoverished. We subsidize medical
>schools, nursing schools, schools for medical technicians through a
>variety of programs. We subsidize drug companies. We are paying
>through the nose for our health care system, but we are not getting our
>money's worth, and won't until administration costs are reduced, and
>profits are brought into reasonable levels. There's also the matter of
>overpayment, through both incompetence and fraud.
However Medicare and Medicaid also have their own problems with fraud
and waste. There is no perfect system possible. It is what is least
bad.
And many hospital do pay PILOTs.
Brian
wrote:
>You're probably right, though most everyone I pal around with (grin)
>DO know, and are NOT happy. It's just more money into the insurance
>coffers with no regulation of premiums.
I'll bet they do especially after you talk to them. <G>
But insurance companies and premiums are regulated by the states. The
effectiveness of the regulation may vary by state but it would be
incorrect to say there is no regulation.
Wes Struebing
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> --
>
>I wouldn't say the Dems rarely used the filibuster. Many federal judgships
>nominated by Bush were thwarted by the filibuster threat. As for health care
>the nuclear option may still be used to pass health care. Takebcare
Threatened? Yup (though not THAT often - and most of Bush's
judgeships were passed - unless the candidate him/herself withdrew
his/her name).
Now, as far as nuclear option - nononono. Reconciliation (which
appears to be the ONLY way the Dems will pass "healthcare reform") is
NOT the nuclear option.
nuclear option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
(note that since this rules filibuster as unconstitutional no one can,
then attempt a filibuster any more)
reconciliation (which is what the Dems are talking about):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29
(and, note that it only applies to budget-type items, which the
healthcare reform bill sort of falls into)
[Apologies to all non-USAians on this...]
Pogonip
You, and I, are going to pay, no matter what happens with current
legislative proposals. We will continue to pay until so much of the GNP
is poured into the black hole of health care that there is a revolt or a
demand for change. We had an opportunity to make meaningful changes,
but we didn't take it, and all the machinations now taking place in
Washington will only delay the inevitable. Meanwhile, more and more
people are going without insurance coverage, and therefore, any care
until they reach the point where they are in such condition as to be
taken to emergency rooms. Even then, there is no guarantee that they
will receive adequate care, if it is not already too late.
As more and more people are laid off from their jobs, cut back to
part-time, or can only find part-time employment if any at all, and at
the same time, insurance is pricing itself out of the reach of small and
medium businesses who would provide coverage to employees if they could,
the mess grows larger and deeper. The huge amount of money now going
into the industry is not paying off in terms of better care. It is
making a few people wealthy. Very few people.
Willow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-bill-some-progre_n_392436.html
Annie C
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:1df435a7-004b-45cc...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> Yep. Joe did it in....
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-bill-some-progre_n_392436.html
I agree with those who say we should just let the bill die. The only
beneficiaries are going to be the health ins companies, big pharma, et al..
Nothing here for we the people. What a fine mess they've made of "reform.".
And while we're at it, perhaps Harry Reid, the owned by the ins industry
Baucus, and Joe L along with 'em should gracefully exit public life and do
us all a huge favor.
Annie
Stanley Moore
Plus I believe the profit margins of the health unsurance industry as a
whole is not all that high. I don't have a cite the the 2-3% ,argin comes to
mind. Take care
Pogonip
> "Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:l0tdi59fdq8ihel3b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:44:11 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You're probably right, though most everyone I pal around with (grin)
>>> DO know, and are NOT happy. It's just more money into the insurance
>>> coffers with no regulation of premiums.
>> I'll bet they do especially after you talk to them. <G>
>>
>> But insurance companies and premiums are regulated by the states. The
>> effectiveness of the regulation may vary by state but it would be
>> incorrect to say there is no regulation.
>
>
> Plus I believe the profit margins of the health unsurance industry as a
> whole is not all that high. I don't have a cite the the 2-3% ,argin comes to
> mind. Take care
Is that before or after executive bonuses?
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:40:01 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>As has been pointed out previously, Stanley - ONLY if the Democrats
>>AND the Independents voted in lockstep. The only party in recent
>>memory that has ever voted in lockstep (and continues to do so) is the
>>Republican Party.
>
>Democrats blocked many judicial nominees by being in lockstep.
Now, you're contradicting yourself, Brian. You were just saying the
other day that , especially in the House that they weren't voting in
lockstep, because there was safety in numbers or somesuch.
Did Dems try? You bet your bippy! Did it work? Occasionally, but
usually because the nominee withdrew him/herself from consideration.
In many other cases, the Repubs pushed - and enough Dems caved.
>>
>>As an aside, while the Dems DID exercise (or threaten to) the
>>filibuster, they rarely did, AND the Republicans threatened "the
>>Nuclear Option" until cooler Republican heads prevailed. Had they
>>passed that option, we would already have healthcare reform passed
>>because no one could filibuster. (and people like Lieberman would not
>>be able to wield inordinate power)
>
>The Democrats have also threatened to use the nuclear option.
Cites? (seriously - they certainly could have, but I don't remember
them threatening to do so as did the Republicans)
Oh, and Stanley (sorry, Brian; this was just a convenient place to
hang this link <grin>) you may find this link interesting. It's a
count of cloture motions and votes, and kind of gives the lie to the
assertion that the Dems, when they were in the minority, were being as
obstructionist as the Republicans are now. I chose cloture counts,
because it is a good indicator of the number of threats of and motions
for a filibuster.
Note, especially, 2007-2008, when Democrats took back the majority.
Wes Struebing
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:l0tdi59fdq8ihel3b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:44:11 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're probably right, though most everyone I pal around with (grin)
>>>DO know, and are NOT happy. It's just more money into the insurance
>>>coffers with no regulation of premiums.
>>
>> I'll bet they do especially after you talk to them. <G>
>>
>> But insurance companies and premiums are regulated by the states. The
>> effectiveness of the regulation may vary by state but it would be
>> incorrect to say there is no regulation.
>
>
>Plus I believe the profit margins of the health unsurance industry as a
>whole is not all that high. I don't have a cite the the 2-3% ,argin comes to
>mind. Take care
Try 25% to 30%, Stanley. They can achieve those margins by denyng
coverage.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Can we run you, Annie? (you echo my sentiments...)
Brian
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:20:04 -0600, "Stanley Moore"
><smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> --
>>
>>I wouldn't say the Dems rarely used the filibuster. Many federal judgships
>>nominated by Bush were thwarted by the filibuster threat. As for health care
>>the nuclear option may still be used to pass health care. Takebcare
>
>Threatened? Yup (though not THAT often - and most of Bush's
>judgeships were passed - unless the candidate him/herself withdrew
>his/her name).
>
>Now, as far as nuclear option - nononono. Reconciliation (which
>appears to be the ONLY way the Dems will pass "healthcare reform") is
>NOT the nuclear option.
>nuclear option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
>(note that since this rules filibuster as unconstitutional no one can,
>then attempt a filibuster any more)
This sounded like it was written by the DNC.
>reconciliation (which is what the Dems are talking about):
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29
>
>(and, note that it only applies to budget-type items, which the
>healthcare reform bill sort of falls into)
Sort of but it seems like a semantic rather than an actual difference.
Brian
wrote:
>You, and I, are going to pay, no matter what happens with current
>legislative proposals. We will continue to pay until so much of the GNP
>is poured into the black hole of health care that there is a revolt or a
>demand for change. We had an opportunity to make meaningful changes,
>but we didn't take it, and all the machinations now taking place in
>Washington will only delay the inevitable. Meanwhile, more and more
>people are going without insurance coverage, and therefore, any care
>until they reach the point where they are in such condition as to be
>taken to emergency rooms. Even then, there is no guarantee that they
>will receive adequate care, if it is not already too late.
>
>As more and more people are laid off from their jobs, cut back to
>part-time, or can only find part-time employment if any at all, and at
>the same time, insurance is pricing itself out of the reach of small and
>medium businesses who would provide coverage to employees if they could,
>the mess grows larger and deeper. The huge amount of money now going
>into the industry is not paying off in terms of better care. It is
>making a few people wealthy. Very few people.
I'm not sure what answer is unless care is denied to all. The amounts
paid to executives, while in some cases very high, are only a small
percentage of the health care expenditures.
More technology is developed and more treatments are available but
some are very expensive. However, I wasn't about to turn down the
stents last year when I was having a heart attack nor did I reject the
pacemaker this year when I was told I had a heart block.
Brian
wrote:
>Is that before or after executive bonuses?
It may be after but if a billion dollar insurance company gave out a
million in executive bonuses, that is only 0.1%.
Pogonip
With good insurance and enough cash to cover the deductibles and what is
deemed excessive, you come out well. But consider that the same
treatments and technology are available in other countries, and many
Americans are now going to other countries for treatment, even Americans
with insurance, because they can get the same or better treatment for
less out-of-pocket expense, even considering the travel costs. That
just doesn't seem right, if we have such great health care here. Of
course, we don't.
David Johnston
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Senate rules allow unlimited debate.and some senators take advantage of that
>to filibuster, i.e talk and talk. You need 60 votes to stop devbate so that
>an issue can come to the floor. Back in the day filibusters used to be
>fairly rare but nowadays partisanship is o vile that they use it all the
>time thus it takes 60 votes to stop debate and bring a bill to to be voted
>on which then required 51 to pass. . The Republicans never had 60 and many
>of their bills never got to the floor for this reason, most notably thye
>tried in 2006 I think to abolish the inheritance tax by coupling it with an
>increase in the minimum wage but it failed due to filibuster. The Dems now
>have 60 Senate votes
No they don't. They have Lieberman.
David Johnston
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Bud" <B...@bud.invalid> wrote in message
>news:7oich6F...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2009-12-12, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> The only reason it passed in the house was because of the power of the
>>> Speaker to enforce lockstep. I suspect that some Democrats who are in
>>> particularly difficult districts were given permission to vote against
>>> the bill.
>>
>> The whole process is sickening to the average populace who does have to
>> work for a living. They, and even I if I were young and working, would
>> be glad to pay the extra tax to have health insurance. A single payer
>> option is the best that any one can hope for. It is up to the average
>> *joe* to start the march of letters and literal marching on the HQ's
>> of their senators home states demanding loudly that they change their
>> loyalties from insurance companies to the people who send them there
>> to Washington to do the peoples bidding.
>> --
>> Bud
>
>The average joe doesn't send their representatives to Congress. The special
>interests do by giving campaign money. The citizens merely vote but it takes
>lots of money to get elected and stay elected. They know that and pay
>attention to the buttered side of the bread not to letters from citizens.
>
>In any case polls show most Americans are happy with whay they have and fear
>rocking the boat. Some 80% are insured one way or another and are content
>with what they have. I think Congress would better serve the public by
>concentrating on the 20% that are un or under insured rather than tinkering
>with the whole syste,. Take care
Congress would be better off leaving well enough alone in that case.
The public had the virtue that it would actually save money by
increasing administrative efficiency. Subsidizing the part of the
population who can't afford health care, with the necessary means test
would only increase systemic inefficiency.
ia...@notcox.net
> Once again, defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory....
The clearest thing to me from this HCR debate is how bought & paid for
our Congress is. A relatively simple task has been completely twisted
out of shape by the need to cater to the true voters - those with
dollars to contribute.
I don't believe the objections those prima-donna Senators make for one
second. Their utter inconsistency on why they have taken their positions
is best explained by the varying flow of money, not by any ideological
beliefs.
The Senate is clearly dysfunctional. There is no reason why one house of
one branch of out government should need any more than a bare majority
of votes in order to pass legislation, yet any nine senators (60 - 51)
appear to be able to stop everything whenever they like. Ditto the
'holds' Senators can make on Administrative appointments.
Arghhhhh!
Thanks for letting me rant!
Ian
ia...@notcox.net
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:20:46 -0800 (PST), ggg <bmvo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> and the surplus that he left us. However, I wasn't able to re-finance
>> my house nor my summer apartment until now. Interest rates are down
>> and we were able to take advantage of them. I'm now paying 485 a month
>> less than I had been.
>>
>> Barry
>
> Which was illusionary because it was based on the tech bubble which
> was bursting at the end of his term.
>
As a headline said in The Onion: "Nation Demands New Bubble".
I think current fiscal policy may be fuelling one, too.
Ian
Willow
> Thanks for letting me rant!
Watching the festivities from north of the border, I can certain
understand your feelings. It is most strange to see one senator cause
such a mess. As it sits, to me is seems to give the insurance
companies many new clients but without any of the safeguards of a
public option.
Willow
Brian
wrote:
>No they don't. They have Lieberman.
If this bill gets through the Senate it will be because of what
Lieberman did. He changed it so others could vote for it.
And I hope it doesn't pass.
He caucuses with the Democrats. Do you think Snowe and Collins are
absolute locks to vote with the Republicans?
Brian
wrote:
>Now, you're contradicting yourself, Brian. You were just saying the
>other day that , especially in the House that they weren't voting in
>lockstep, because there was safety in numbers or somesuch.
No I'm not. I was referring to a specific health care vote in the
House where Pelosi gave permission for some particularly endangered
members to vote against the majority;
The Senate is a different animal.
>
>Did Dems try? You bet your bippy! Did it work? Occasionally, but
>usually because the nominee withdrew him/herself from consideration.
>In many other cases, the Repubs pushed - and enough Dems caved.
Sometimes but often when the candidate "caved", it was because it was
futile to continue trying.
I'm not sure that the hostile environment is a good thing. On either
side.
>Oh, and Stanley (sorry, Brian; this was just a convenient place to
>hang this link <grin>) you may find this link interesting. It's a
>count of cloture motions and votes, and kind of gives the lie to the
>assertion that the Dems, when they were in the minority, were being as
>obstructionist as the Republicans are now. I chose cloture counts,
>because it is a good indicator of the number of threats of and motions
>for a filibuster.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ybcc68x
>
>Note, especially, 2007-2008, when Democrats took back the majority.
If I have time to check this, I'll try to comment. I don't now.
Brian
wrote:
>With good insurance and enough cash to cover the deductibles and what is
>deemed excessive, you come out well. But consider that the same
>treatments and technology are available in other countries, and many
>Americans are now going to other countries for treatment, even Americans
>with insurance, because they can get the same or better treatment for
>less out-of-pocket expense, even considering the travel costs. That
>just doesn't seem right, if we have such great health care here. Of
>course, we don't.
Outsourcing medical care which is something some insurance companies
are pushing.
It's cheaper for the same reason manufacturing companies outsource.
If you want to go to a third world country for medical treatment, go
ahead. But don't come back here expecting medical professions to
rectify the errors.
Brian
wrote:
>Congress would be better off leaving well enough alone in that case.
>The public had the virtue that it would actually save money by
>increasing administrative efficiency. Subsidizing the part of the
>population who can't afford health care, with the necessary means test
>would only increase systemic inefficiency.
There are problems and improvements can be made. I'm really concerned
that there are going to be incredible unintended consequences of
passing a rushed bill that nobody voting on it understands.
Brian
wrote:
>Try 25% to 30%, Stanley. They can achieve those margins by denyng
>coverage.
Really? Have any proof? Incidentally, the Boston Globe is owned by the
NY Times.
On the Fortune 500 list of top industries, health insurance companies
ranked 35th in profitability in 2008; their overall profit margin was
a mere 2.2 percent. They lagged far behind such industries as
pharmaceuticals, which showed a profit margin of 19.3 percent,
railroads (12.6 percent), and mining (11.5 percent). Among health
insurers, the best performer last year was HealthSpring, which showed
a profit of 5.4 percent. �That�s a less profitable margin,�� AP noted,
�than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach, and
Molson and Coors beers.��
For the most recent quarter of 2009, health-insurance plans earned
profits of only 3.3 percent, ranking them 86th on the expanded Yahoo!
Finance list of US industries. Makers of software applications, by
contrast, are pulling in profits of nearly 22 percent. Strangely,
however, MoveOn and the Democrats aren�t demanding a �public option��
to compete with Oracle and Adobe to drive down their �immoral��
profits.
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/11/01/hyperbole_in_the_health_debate/
Pogonip
> Outsourcing medical care which is something some insurance companies
> are pushing.
> It's cheaper for the same reason manufacturing companies outsource.
> If you want to go to a third world country for medical treatment, go
> ahead. But don't come back here expecting medical professions to
> rectify the errors.
Have you looked at the listings for physicians recently? If so, you
will have noticed that many of the names listed are foreign names,
because many of the doctors in this country are from and were trained in
other countries. Open a phone book, take a look. Not only that, but
many U.S. natives have gone to other countries for their training, as
well. Doctors certainly vary in their level of expertise, and in the
quality of treatment they give, but there is no correlation between that
and their country of origin or where they received their training. It's
remarkably uniform around the globe.
Lynn Allen
> Have you looked at the listings for physicians recently? If so, you
> will have noticed that many of the names listed are foreign names,
> because many of the doctors in this country are from and were trained
> in other countries. Open a phone book, take a look. Not only that,
> but many U.S. natives have gone to other countries for their training,
> as well. Doctors certainly vary in their level of expertise, and in
> the quality of treatment they give, but there is no correlation between
> that and their country of origin or where they received their training.
> It's remarkably uniform around the globe.
Well, that's because no matter where they received their training,
doctors in the US must pass US medical boards before they're licensed
to practice here. Some foreign-trained doctors must do extra training
to pass those boards.
Foreign doctors on foreign soil, I'm betting some countries are better
than others.
--
--
Lymaree
http://www.skepticaljurorblog.blogspot.com/
Stanley Moore
Thank you for looking this up. I know I read it somewhere and I appreciate
your finding it for me. I know most folks do not like insurance companies.
That's a given. But to accuse them of obscene profits when that is clearly
not the case is crazy. I think many people are ignoranct of what kind of
profits many industires make. Oil companies for instance are less profitable
than many others bit becaise they are so large even modest margins result in
huge dollar amounts.
Most businesses that are profitable are not ripping off their customers but
are making reasonable profits. There is a tendency of many to assume that
capitalists are making bloated profits when they are clearly not doing so.
Talke care
Stanley Moore
Willow
**************************************************
It isanot one senator as you say mut 40 of them. There wold be no problem if
the proposed legislation had braod appeal across party lines. Historically
huge initiatives have enjoyed broad support from both parties as well as
broad support from the public. Civil Rights in the 60s has biparitsan
support as did Medicare, the Space program and many other large changes in
policy. Never has such a big and improtant change in direction been so
dependent on a single party to pass it. Additionally polls show shome 60% of
the public are opposed to this particular bill.
I agree that reforms are needed and more people should be covered by
insurance but focussing on those who need it rathere than wholesale changes
to a system that workds reasonably well now is unwise IMHO. Surely changes
could be made that enjoy braod public support and can be supported by those
of both parties is possiible. It has in the past and should be true in this
instance. Take care
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:21:26 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>No they don't. They have Lieberman.
>
>If this bill gets through the Senate it will be because of what
>Lieberman did. He changed it so others could vote for it.
>And I hope it doesn't pass.
I, too, hope it doesn't pass. However, my hope is for non-passage in
its present state.
The only thing Lieberman has done for it is to gut it. And, now
Nelson is trying to remove the last vestiges of meat on the bones...
>
>He caucuses with the Democrats. Do you think Snowe and Collins are
>absolute locks to vote with the Republicans?
In a word - yes.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:15:47 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Now, you're contradicting yourself, Brian. You were just saying the
>>other day that , especially in the House that they weren't voting in
>>lockstep, because there was safety in numbers or somesuch.
>
>No I'm not. I was referring to a specific health care vote in the
>House where Pelosi gave permission for some particularly endangered
>members to vote against the majority;
>The Senate is a different animal.
Ok, I'll concede that point, though I'm still not quite sure what
you're saying. ;-)
>>
>>Did Dems try? You bet your bippy! Did it work? Occasionally, but
>>usually because the nominee withdrew him/herself from consideration.
>>In many other cases, the Repubs pushed - and enough Dems caved.
>
>Sometimes but often when the candidate "caved", it was because it was
>futile to continue trying.
>I'm not sure that the hostile environment is a good thing. On either
>side.
>
On that we can both agree, sir!
ia...@notcox.net
> "Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:c09dda96-d19d-4302...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 17, 6:44 pm, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for letting me rant!
>
> Watching the festivities from north of the border, I can certain
> understand your feelings. It is most strange to see one senator cause
> such a mess. As it sits, to me is seems to give the insurance
> companies many new clients but without any of the safeguards of a
> public option.
>
> Willow
>
> **************************************************
>
> It isanot one senator as you say mut 40 of them. There wold be no problem if
> the proposed legislation had braod appeal across party lines. Historically
> huge initiatives have enjoyed broad support from both parties as well as
> broad support from the public. Civil Rights in the 60s has biparitsan
> support as did Medicare, the Space program and many other large changes in
> policy. Never has such a big and improtant change in direction been so
> dependent on a single party to pass it. Additionally polls show shome 60% of
> the public are opposed to this particular bill.
You can't have bip[artisan action without two parties to it. We
squandered the summer vainly trying to get even a few Republicans on
board. It turned out that none of the Republicans were seriousabout
reform, but only in delay and distraction. Grassley, for example, was
either dishonest or spineless in his actions.
The minimal steps proposed by Republicans would not fix the system. Tort
reform would do very little. National competition would be good, but not
if the regs were to be governed by whatever state have the worst regs in
the country. However, if any of them had shown any interest whatsoever
in cutting a deal, those things were within their reach.
Neither party appears ready to end anti-trust prohibitions on insurance
companies, so they can continue to fix prices as they like.
Polling also shows that a majority of the public does want health
reform, just not this bought-off compromised bill that it looks like we
are getting.
> I agree that reforms are needed and more people should be covered by
> insurance but focussing on those who need it rathere than wholesale changes
> to a system that workds reasonably well now is unwise IMHO. Surely changes
> could be made that enjoy braod public support and can be supported by those
> of both parties is possiible. It has in the past and should be true in this
> instance. Take care
Sorry, I disagree. We don't need Insurance Reform, we need fundamental
real reform that cuts the insurance companies down to size, and puts us,
not corporate America, in charge of our health concerns. We are not
customers when it comes to health care, but citizens.
Cheers,
Ian
Brian
wrote:
>>He caucuses with the Democrats. Do you think Snowe and Collins are
>>absolute locks to vote with the Republicans?
>
>In a word - yes.
How many Democrats do you think will vote against cloture which is the
real test of this bill?
Brian
wrote:
>Have you looked at the listings for physicians recently? If so, you
>will have noticed that many of the names listed are foreign names,
>because many of the doctors in this country are from and were trained in
>other countries. Open a phone book, take a look. Not only that, but
>many U.S. natives have gone to other countries for their training, as
>well. Doctors certainly vary in their level of expertise, and in the
>quality of treatment they give, but there is no correlation between that
>and their country of origin or where they received their training. It's
>remarkably uniform around the globe.
They still must be licensed here if they practice in the U.S. There
are god physicians in other countries but there is a great variation.
And there is still the problem, which you didn't address, of what
happens to patients who have an adverse result from foreign treatment.
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Thank you for looking this up. I know I read it somewhere and I appreciate
>your finding it for me. I know most folks do not like insurance companies.
>That's a given. But to accuse them of obscene profits when that is clearly
>not the case is crazy. I think many people are ignoranct of what kind of
>profits many industires make. Oil companies for instance are less profitable
>than many others bit becaise they are so large even modest margins result in
>huge dollar amounts.
There have been a number of places I saw the insurance company
profits. I figured if I quoted it from a liberal source, rather than
say Fox, it might be believed. <G>
There is a tremendous ignorance about economic issues. Profits are one
of them.
>
>Most businesses that are profitable are not ripping off their customers but
>are making reasonable profits. There is a tendency of many to assume that
>capitalists are making bloated profits when they are clearly not doing so.
>Talke care
There are abuses and those who do it give others a bad name because it
can be seized on by opponents.
Brian
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I agree that reforms are needed and more people should be covered by
>insurance but focussing on those who need it rathere than wholesale changes
>to a system that workds reasonably well now is unwise IMHO. Surely changes
>could be made that enjoy braod public support and can be supported by those
>of both parties is possiible. It has in the past and should be true in this
>instance. Take care
This bill seems less about health care than it is about control.
There was an article in our local, and liberal, paper about how many
don't understand what this bill will and won't do. Many people that
what they perceive as beneficial will not take place for years.
There's also a misconception that everyone will be covered by this
bill.
Stanley Moore
"i...@notcox.net" <ia...@notcox.net> wrote in message
news:i_XWm.24943$_b5....@newsfe22.iad...
If we tiik corporate America out of the equation as you suggest I think we
would be much worse off. Nearly 80% Americans are covered through their
employers i.e. corporate America. Most companies are burdened by the cost of
health insurance for their employees. Takeing corporate America oput of the
picture would result in those Americans havign no insurance coverage at all.
Pogonip
>
> And there is still the problem, which you didn't address, of what
> happens to patients who have an adverse result from foreign treatment.
The same thing that happens to patients who have an adverse result from
a domestic treatment. They find another doctor.
Bud
>
> Plus I believe the profit margins of the health unsurance industry as a
> whole is not all that high. I don't have a cite the the 2-3% ,argin comes to
> mind. Take care
If the insurance companies are making a profit in the 2-3% range,
how come they can afford to spend 340 some million dollars on
lobbyists?
lobbyist:a person who solicits members of a
legislature for the purpose of influencing legislation
--
Bud
Stanley Moore
"Bud" <B...@bud.invalid.msn.com> wrote in message
news:7p4kuv...@mid.individual.net...
Lobbying costs are an expense of doing business. They are paid before
profits are calculated. Take care
Brian
wrote:
>The same thing that happens to patients who have an adverse result from
>a domestic treatment. They find another doctor.
What recourse do they have and who pays for the care?
Brian
>If the insurance companies are making a profit in the 2-3% range,
>how come they can afford to spend 340 some million dollars on
>lobbyists?
>
>lobbyist:a person who solicits members of a
> legislature for the purpose of influencing legislation
I'm curious if you have a reference for that figure. I guess it's
possible but it seems high.
Brian
wrote:
>You can't have bip[artisan action without two parties to it. We
>squandered the summer vainly trying to get even a few Republicans on
>board. It turned out that none of the Republicans were seriousabout
>reform, but only in delay and distraction. Grassley, for example, was
>either dishonest or spineless in his actions.
There was an attempt to get Snowe but there in the House Republicans
were completely frozen out and most Republicans were also left out in
the Senate.
>
>The minimal steps proposed by Republicans would not fix the system. Tort
>reform would do very little. National competition would be good, but not
>if the regs were to be governed by whatever state have the worst regs in
>the country. However, if any of them had shown any interest whatsoever
>in cutting a deal, those things were within their reach.
Tort reform is a bigger part than you believe but the Democrats
couldn't do anything about it because of the influence of the trial
lawyers. There were attempts at pretending it was on the table but it
wasn't.
Democrats aren't looking for health insurance reform. They are looking
to control the health care system. Republicans are going to buy into
that. Neither will the American public which is why there is such
urgency to passage. the leadership doesn't want those in Congress to
go home and talk to their constituents.
Why else the big rush?
>
>Neither party appears ready to end anti-trust prohibitions on insurance
>companies, so they can continue to fix prices as they like.
An unfortunate circumstance.
>
>Polling also shows that a majority of the public does want health
>reform, just not this bought-off compromised bill that it looks like we
>are getting.
It depends on the definition of reform and how the question is
phrased. I'm in favor of reform but not anything the Democrats have
proposed.
>Sorry, I disagree. We don't need Insurance Reform, we need fundamental
>real reform that cuts the insurance companies down to size, and puts us,
>not corporate America, in charge of our health concerns. We are not
>customers when it comes to health care, but citizens.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ian
And puts even more power in the hands of the federal government?
barbara fister
The New York Times had a higher figure today for all health care
lobbyists with interests in this issue - "in the first nine months of
the year, health care lobbyists spent at least $396 million, according
to the Center for Responsive Politics"
Those are not all representing insurance companies, however. The Chicago
Tribune has a pretty interesting story published today
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-health-lobbyists_bddec20,0,4912184,full.story
"An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University's Medill
News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington
Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door
between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a
stake in health care legislation.
"At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership
offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul
legislation -- along with at least 13 former lawmakers -- registered to
represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last
year, according to the analysis.
"Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past
two years, the study shows."
Barfly
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:50:15 -0800, Pogonip <nob...@nowhere.org>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Have you looked at the listings for physicians recently? If so, you
>>will have noticed that many of the names listed are foreign names,
>>because many of the doctors in this country are from and were trained in
>>other countries. Open a phone book, take a look. Not only that, but
>>many U.S. natives have gone to other countries for their training, as
>>well. Doctors certainly vary in their level of expertise, and in the
>>quality of treatment they give, but there is no correlation between that
>>and their country of origin or where they received their training. It's
>>remarkably uniform around the globe.
>
>They still must be licensed here if they practice in the U.S.
Not to mention often they came for the medical education and just
never left.
David Johnston
>On 2009-12-16, Stanley Moore wrote:
>>
>> Plus I believe the profit margins of the health unsurance industry as a
>> whole is not all that high. I don't have a cite the the 2-3% ,argin comes to
>> mind. Take care
>
>If the insurance companies are making a profit in the 2-3% range,
>how come they can afford to spend 340 some million dollars on
>lobbyists?
>
Your question makes no sense. 3% profit on an industry that serves
80% of the population is a huge amount of money.
Bud
> Brian wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious if you have a reference for that figure. I guess it's
>> possible but it seems high.
>>
>
> The New York Times had a higher figure today for all health care
> lobbyists with interests in this issue - "in the first nine months of
> the year, health care lobbyists spent at least $396 million, according
> to the Center for Responsive Politics"
>
> Those are not all representing insurance companies, however. The Chicago
> Tribune has a pretty interesting story published today
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-health-lobbyists_bddec20,0,4912184,full.story
>
> "An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University's Medill
> News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington
> Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door
> between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a
> stake in health care legislation.
>
> "At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership
> offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul
> legislation -- along with at least 13 former lawmakers -- registered to
> represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last
> year, according to the analysis.
>
> "Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past
> two years, the study shows."
>
> Barfly
Thank you Barbara, I had seen and heard the figure on PBS's "Bill Moyers
Journal".
--
Bud
Bud
Their wonderful insurance company of course, which everyone has because it
is so cheap and affordable to everyone.
--
Bud
Pogonip
*giggle* Right, Bud! So far, nobody I know has had any "adverse
result" but odds are that someone somewhere has, or thinks he has. I
suppose they could sue, but that could be expensive since they'd have to
go back and file in a local court.
One friend goes to Mexico every year for a month, and has had cosmetic
work done. She could more easily sue, or simply go back for corrective
work, but it hasn't come up. Some other friends live in Mexico full
time, and have signed up for the Mexican health coverage. They had
their first medical experience several years ago, shortly after moving
there, when she had an emergency gall bladder removal. She's a nurse
and very picky, but was impressed by the care, and even more impressed
by the size of the bill, which was a fraction of what it would have been
in the States.
Brian
wrote:
>*giggle* Right, Bud! So far, nobody I know has had any "adverse
>result" but odds are that someone somewhere has, or thinks he has. I
>suppose they could sue, but that could be expensive since they'd have to
>go back and file in a local court.
How many people do you know who have gone to foreign counties for
treatment.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that laws in foreign countries are the
same as in the U.S.
>
>One friend goes to Mexico every year for a month, and has had cosmetic
>work done. She could more easily sue, or simply go back for corrective
>work, but it hasn't come up.
Some things can't be corrected.
Brian
<bfi...@hickorytech.net> wrote:
>The New York Times had a higher figure today for all health care
>lobbyists with interests in this issue - "in the first nine months of
>the year, health care lobbyists spent at least $396 million, according
>to the Center for Responsive Politics"
>
>Those are not all representing insurance companies, however. The Chicago
>Tribune has a pretty interesting story published today
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-health-lobbyists_bddec20,0,4912184,full.story
>
>"An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University's Medill
>News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington
>Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door
>between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a
>stake in health care legislation.
>
>"At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership
>offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul
>legislation -- along with at least 13 former lawmakers -- registered to
>represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last
>year, according to the analysis.
>
>"Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past
>two years, the study shows."
>
>
>Barfly
It sounds like this includes all parties with an interest in the
health care debate which would include among others insurance
companies, drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, trial lawyers,
device makers, etc.
Didn't Obama vow to end this?
Lynn Allen
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:18:44 -0800, Pogonip <nob...@nowhere.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>> *giggle* Right, Bud! So far, nobody I know has had any "adverse
>> result" but odds are that someone somewhere has, or thinks he has. I
>> suppose they could sue, but that could be expensive since they'd have to
>> go back and file in a local court.
>
> How many people do you know who have gone to foreign counties for
> treatment.
> You are assuming, incorrectly, that laws in foreign countries are the
> same as in the U.S.
Correct. In many places, one has to be a citizen to file suit, if suit
is even possible, and also, doctors may not carry malpractice insurance
or don't carry it in amounts that make any difference to the injured
party. Doesn't do much good to get the entire property of a doctor when
that's worth $15.95 US.
>>
>> One friend goes to Mexico every year for a month, and has had cosmetic
>> work done. She could more easily sue, or simply go back for corrective
>> work, but it hasn't come up.
>
> Some things can't be corrected.
Yeah, I was going to point out that "adverse results" can include
injury up to and including death, or something non-reversible like limb
amputation or in the case of cosmetic surgery, permanent disfigurement.
Living in LA, we see plenty of these cases, where women who have gone
even to licensed US doctors have things done to them that end badly.
Liposuction that leaves huge craters in the flesh or toxic infection.
Faces pulled so tight they no longer appear human and are incapable of
expression other than that final shocked grimace. Nerves cut so that
taste or touch are forever gone.
The local news runs one of these horror stories about once a month. :/
ia...@notcox.net
The money corporations spend on healthcare is taken out of the wages
they would otherwise pay us. Thats one of the reasons why we have had
such mediocre raises for the last decade or so. It alos traps people
with pre-existing conditions in jobs they might otherwise leave, as well
as removing us from making economic decisions about what medical care is
worth paying for.
Ian
ia...@notcox.net
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:44:03 -0500, "i...@notcox.net" <ia...@notcox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> You can't have bip[artisan action without two parties to it. We
>> squandered the summer vainly trying to get even a few Republicans on
>> board. It turned out that none of the Republicans were seriousabout
>> reform, but only in delay and distraction. Grassley, for example, was
>> either dishonest or spineless in his actions.
>
> There was an attempt to get Snowe but there in the House Republicans
> were completely frozen out and most Republicans were also left out in
> the Senate.
I disagree.
>> The minimal steps proposed by Republicans would not fix the system.
Tort
>> reform would do very little. National competition would be good, but
not
>> if the regs were to be governed by whatever state have the worst
regs in
>> the country. However, if any of them had shown any interest whatsoever
>> in cutting a deal, those things were within their reach.
>
> Tort reform is a bigger part than you believe but the Democrats
> couldn't do anything about it because of the influence of the trial
> lawyers. There were attempts at pretending it was on the table but it
> wasn't.
Parts of the country that have had tort reform have not seen reduced
health care costs. I believe there is some weak efforts towards that in
the current bill.
>
> Democrats aren't looking for health insurance reform. They are looking
> to control the health care system. Republicans are going to buy into
> that. Neither will the American public which is why there is such
> urgency to passage. the leadership doesn't want those in Congress to
> go home and talk to their constituents.
> Why else the big rush?
A whole year! And you call that 'rushing it'. Do you think there are no
other porblems that can be dealt with within a 2-year time frame?
No, we don't want health insurance reform, we want real reform that gets
rid of a 20% tax on everybody (insurance industry profits) for
providing, essentially, a randomly faulty bill-paying system. Tyhe
health care system should be controlled by citixens, not by a bunch of
lobbyists, insurance companies, and large hospital corporations.
>
>> Neither party appears ready to end anti-trust prohibitions on insurance
>> companies, so they can continue to fix prices as they like.
>
> An unfortunate circumstance.
>
>> Polling also shows that a majority of the public does want health
>> reform, just not this bought-off compromised bill that it looks like we
>> are getting.
>
> It depends on the definition of reform and how the question is
> phrased. I'm in favor of reform but not anything the Democrats have
> proposed.
>
>> Sorry, I disagree. We don't need Insurance Reform, we need fundamental
>> real reform that cuts the insurance companies down to size, and puts
us,
>> not corporate America, in charge of our health concerns. We are not
>> customers when it comes to health care, but citizens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ian
>
> And puts even more power in the hands of the federal government?
At the moment, the power is in the hands of insurance companies. So yes,
I would far rather have the people who have done a decent job with the
health of older Americans supervising mine, rather than trusting to the
morals of insurance companies, who have so effectively demonstrated that
they have no morals at all.
Ian
Mike Burke
wrote:
>The money corporations spend on healthcare is taken out of the wages
>they would otherwise pay us. Thats one of the reasons why we have had
>such mediocre raises for the last decade or so. It alos traps people
>with pre-existing conditions in jobs they might otherwise leave, as well
>as removing us from making economic decisions about what medical care is
>worth paying for.
Which is why I've always thought the American system is absolutely
insane. Talk about wage slaves. What you have there is insurance
slavery.
Mique
ia...@notcox.net
Agreed, it truly is insane. That Congress can't see that proves how
blinded they are by campaign money from lobbyists.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Hmm. Never heard it out that way, but you're pretty-much correct,
Mique. (and I don't see it changing much under the bill the Senate is
contemplating.)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>Brian wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Democrats aren't looking for health insurance reform. They are looking
> > to control the health care system. Republicans are going to buy into
> > that. Neither will the American public which is why there is such
> > urgency to passage. the leadership doesn't want those in Congress to
> > go home and talk to their constituents.
> > Why else the big rush?
>
>A whole year! And you call that 'rushing it'. Do you think there are no
>other porblems that can be dealt with within a 2-year time frame?
>
One correction - to you both. The US has been trying for some sort of
national health care since 1912 (Teddy Roosevelt...). And since the
1940's there has been a Senator Wyden (not the same one - grandfather
and grandson, I believe) introducing proposals for healthcare reform.
Hardly rushing into it.
Brian
<ly...@NOT-semiotics.com> wrote:
>Correct. In many places, one has to be a citizen to file suit, if suit
>is even possible, and also, doctors may not carry malpractice insurance
>or don't carry it in amounts that make any difference to the injured
>party. Doesn't do much good to get the entire property of a doctor when
>that's worth $15.95 US.
I think many people get into this without understanding all of the
pitfalls.
>Yeah, I was going to point out that "adverse results" can include
>injury up to and including death, or something non-reversible like limb
>amputation or in the case of cosmetic surgery, permanent disfigurement.
>
>Living in LA, we see plenty of these cases, where women who have gone
>even to licensed US doctors have things done to them that end badly.
>Liposuction that leaves huge craters in the flesh or toxic infection.
>Faces pulled so tight they no longer appear human and are incapable of
>expression other than that final shocked grimace. Nerves cut so that
>taste or touch are forever gone.
>
>The local news runs one of these horror stories about once a month. :/
Unfortunate outcomes can certainly happen in the U.S. and there can be
well qualified medical professionals in other countries but having had
medical problems, I can't see intentionally seeking out care in
another country.
Brian
>Parts of the country that have had tort reform have not seen reduced
>health care costs. I believe there is some weak efforts towards that in
>the current bill.
That is the mantra of the trial lawyers.
>A whole year! And you call that 'rushing it'. Do you think there are no
>other porblems that can be dealt with within a 2-year time frame?
Not this bill it hasn't..This was hatched in the middle of the night
with no transparency whatsoever. The Democrats are trying to make
people believe that because a bill was proposed before, that should
end the debate even if this is radically different.
>
>No, we don't want health insurance reform, we want real reform that gets
>rid of a 20% tax on everybody (insurance industry profits) for
>providing, essentially, a randomly faulty bill-paying system. Tyhe
>health care system should be controlled by citixens, not by a bunch of
>lobbyists, insurance companies, and large hospital corporations.
You are making the assumption that a government bureaucracy is the
same as the "citizens."
>At the moment, the power is in the hands of insurance companies. So yes,
>I would far rather have the people who have done a decent job with the
>health of older Americans supervising mine, rather than trusting to the
>morals of insurance companies, who have so effectively demonstrated that
>they have no morals at all.
>
>Ian
>
Are you referring to the Medicare program that doctors are bailing out
of because of low reimbursement rates, that is essentially subsidized
because providers can survive not on the Medicare fees but on the
insurance fees of those younger and which is underfunded by trillions
of dollars and is headed for bankruptcy?
Brian
wrote:
>One correction - to you both. The US has been trying for some sort of
>national health care since 1912 (Teddy Roosevelt...). And since the
>1940's there has been a Senator Wyden (not the same one - grandfather
>and grandson, I believe) introducing proposals for healthcare reform.
>
>Hardly rushing into it.
But hardly the same bill.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Ultimately, no, but the initial bills have all been VERY similar. So
there's been nothing surprising or rushed.
ia...@notcox.net
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:09:54 -0500, "i...@notcox.net" <ia...@notcox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Parts of the country that have had tort reform have not seen reduced
>> health care costs. I believe there is some weak efforts towards that in
>> the current bill.
>
> That is the mantra of the trial lawyers.
>
>> A whole year! And you call that 'rushing it'. Do you think there are no
>> other porblems that can be dealt with within a 2-year time frame?
>
> Not this bill it hasn't..This was hatched in the middle of the night
> with no transparency whatsoever.
Excuse me! What were all those 'bipartisan' Republicans such as Senator
Grassley doing in Kent Conrad's committee all spring, then, acting as if
they were doing to support doing something? Middle of the night? Pah!
Republicans had every opportunity to engage seriously in the process.
Not many bothered, and those that did allowed themselves to be scared
off by the teabaggers.
The Democrats are trying to make
> people believe that because a bill was proposed before, that should
> end the debate even if this is radically different.
>> No, we don't want health insurance reform, we want real reform that gets
>> rid of a 20% tax on everybody (insurance industry profits) for
>> providing, essentially, a randomly faulty bill-paying system. Tyhe
>> health care system should be controlled by citixens, not by a bunch of
>> lobbyists, insurance companies, and large hospital corporations.
>
> You are making the assumption that a government bureaucracy is the
> same as the "citizens."
I will take a government bureaucrat ANY DAY over an insurance industry
bureaucrat.
>
>> At the moment, the power is in the hands of insurance companies. So yes,
>> I would far rather have the people who have done a decent job with the
>> health of older Americans supervising mine, rather than trusting to the
>> morals of insurance companies, who have so effectively demonstrated that
>> they have no morals at all.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
> Are you referring to the Medicare program that doctors are bailing out
> of because of low reimbursement rates, that is essentially subsidized
> because providers can survive not on the Medicare fees but on the
> insurance fees of those younger and which is underfunded by trillions
> of dollars and is headed for bankruptcy?
It will be funded one way or the other. For a patient looking for
medical attention, Medicare is a far better bet than any private
corporation.
You want us to ignore the huge number of people with no coverage, the
smaller number of people ditched into bankruptcy by insurance companies
because they had the audacity to cost more money than they had paid, and
the rest of us, hustled into deferring care we need, and getting stiffed
with exclusions, prerequisites, and the delay, delay, delay that is the
stock-in-trade of these utter bastards.
Cheers,
Ian
Annie C
"Wes Struebing" <str...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h8b0j5tauegp9b505...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:09:54 -0500, "i...@notcox.net" <ia...@notcox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Brian wrote:
> <snip>
>> >
>> > Democrats aren't looking for health insurance reform. They are looking
>> > to control the health care system. Republicans are going to buy into
>> > that. Neither will the American public which is why there is such
>> > urgency to passage. the leadership doesn't want those in Congress to
>> > go home and talk to their constituents.
>> > Why else the big rush?
>>
>>A whole year! And you call that 'rushing it'. Do you think there are no
>>other porblems that can be dealt with within a 2-year time frame?
>>
> One correction - to you both. The US has been trying for some sort of
> national health care since 1912 (Teddy Roosevelt...). And since the
> 1940's there has been a Senator Wyden (not the same one - grandfather
> and grandson, I believe) introducing proposals for healthcare reform.
>
> Hardly rushing into it.
> --
>
> Wes Struebing
Wes, it's John Dingell of Michigan.
In January 1995, John Dingell, Jr. became the Dean, or the longest-serving
member of the House and, as of 2009, the father and son together have 76
consecutive years of service in Congress. A hallmark of their service has
been a proposal for a national health insurance system, first introduced by
John, Sr. in 1933 and re-introduced since at every Congress by the father
and then the son, John Jr. -- But you're spot on that this all goes back to
Teddy R.
Annie
Lynn Allen
> those that did allowed themselves to be scared off by the teabaggers.
Errr. Sure you don't mean "tea partiers?" Teabaggers are something else
entirely.
Entirely.
Suzanne F
> On 2009-12-22 19:20:58 -0800, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> said:
>
> > those that did allowed themselves to be scared off by the teabaggers.
>
> Errr. Sure you don't mean "tea partiers?" Teabaggers are something else
> entirely.
>
> Entirely.
> --
> --
> Lymareehttp://www.skepticaljurorblog.blogspot.com/
They started out by calling themselves "Tea-baggers" - having tea bags
hanging off of their hats, etc. I think they were finally clued in to
what tea-bagging meant.
Suzanne
Wes Struebing
<snicker> Hard telling, Susan. They're still running around with
signs saying:
"Teabag Democrats before they teabag you..."
(guess some never got the memo...)