[TheLastMohican]

Many of the more conservative members would object to it in any form, but to those leaning liberal/democratic: if you supported the bill at some point, do you still support it now? Why or why not?

Specifically, which feature(s) of the bill would be the deal maker or breaker? (For example, if the public option was added to the current form, would your opinion change?)

[lurk]

How does anyone know what the current form is? According to one report I read, only those with access to Harry Reid's office can find out what's in it.

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Many of the more conservative members would object to it in any form, but to those leaning liberal/democratic: if you supported the bill at some point, do you still support it now? Why or why not? Specifically, which feature(s) of the bill would be the deal maker or breaker? (For example, if the public option was added to the current form, would your opinion change?)

The critical element of the health care bill was the public option; ie getting the profit motive and moral hazard on the part of the insurance companies out of decisions for my health care.

Without that option, its huge payolla for the insurance companies.

[Dodeca]

Dont know whats in the bill but this is what I heard are the main problems with healthcare today.

regulation on doctors
to many subsidies for drug companies
Medicaid liabilities

[Arkeph]

There are a few reforms to insurance--provisions to prevent discrimination by gender or pre-existing conditions, for example--plus the individual mandate, which comes with subsidies for some who can't afford to buy insurance. Then, there's the insurance exchange, which is supposed to enhance market competition.

Insurance reforms are definitely a good idea, but only a small help (and may be easy to thwart). The individual mandate is potentially a huge burden without subsidies to help those who can't afford insurance. Since there aren't any real cost control provisions, though, this provision guarantees that the insurance industry will get greater profits at the expense of the taxpayer, via subsidies and mandatory purchases. I'm not sure what to make of the insurance exchange. I don't know much about it, but I very much doubt it would have any relevance without an incentive to lower costs.

If that outline remains accurate when the final bill gets to the floor, then I'd say we'll all be better off if it gets killed, and I'll be glad just to appreciate how good the status quo is compared to the alternative it would offer.

When it had a robust public option, it was at least palatable. Single-payer would have been good.

[Shauru]

As people have noted it's really hard to say what the exact language is at this point. However, I don't really favor it at this time.

This one issue has made me more frustrated with congress than ever and seems to flash up a giant neon sign over the american public that says "Stupid Here".

What the hell is the point of passing a bill that won't create a way for everyone in the country to get covered by health insurance? The public option was ideal. The medicaid/care expansion would've been nice.

Ugh. I could really go off an an angry ranting tangent.......to the rant thread!

[Ray9]

The overwhelming majority of citizens, both Democrats and Republicans, are against the public option. So Democrats in the both houses would have to betray their voters in order to pass this healthcare bill and then suffer the consequences in the next election. If anything is passed at all it will likely be without the public option.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The overwhelming majority of citizens, both Democrats and Republicans, are against the public option.

Still not a fan of citing any sources, are you? It's not hard to do. Watch-- Most Americans do in fact want a public option, according to
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
poll. These polls indicate that Americans do not like the versions of the bills that do not have a public option.

[reb]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


strangely, Elston, i have heard one commontater state that the current bill will cause everyone not covered by it (such as teachers) to wish they were, will cause the biggest economy growth since after wwII and improve all facets of doctor patient relationships. personally, i would like someone i could trust to synthesize the 1,000 pages of crap into something understandable, so i know what is being done. my insurance went up almost 50% this coming year. if my taxes go up a commensurate amount, then i have been truly screwed and not kissed. to improve the health care i get, someone would have to run all the doctors out of town.

[Blse]

I'm a moderate Democrat (well, very laissez-fare on social issues but moderate on economic matters) and I do support its passing. The bill, as imperfect as it may be in certain regards, will help address certain imperfections in the health care market. Adverse selection, for instance, is addressed in the bill and that's imperative, as is the need for wider risk pooling. As with all insurance the wider the risk is spread the better. Moving from having 85% to having 97% of the population insured spreads risk much more efficiently (that's why many state require everyone to have car insurance). Fruthermore, catastrophic protection needs to made mandatory for all insurance plans to prevent people from going bankrupt to pay for medical care.

A public option to compete with the market sounds like a good idea, although it isn't necessary. The Dutch are able to deliver universal health care, for instance, relying exclusively on private insurers. Furthermore, our biggest insurer here in the U.S., Blue Cross, is a non-profit.

What isn't sufficiently addressed is the insanity regarding mal-practice suits and the astronomical insurance premiums doctors pay (and the cost they in turn pass on to patients). Mal-practice laws need to revised.

Overall, I rather see an imperfect bill pass than see nothing pass. Laws can be changed and lot can be done at the Executive level to change the implementation of policy considerably. The real danger is not doing anything about the current problems in the system.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 11:32 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The critical element of the health care bill was the public option; ie getting the profit motive and moral hazard on the part of the insurance companies out of decisions for my health care. Without that option, its huge payolla for the insurance companies.

Except that only a minority of Americans are actually ensured by for-profit companies. Blue Cross is a non-profit and covers about 33% of Americans (including yours truly), Medicare and Medicaid cover another 20%, about 15% are uninsured. I do agree that having non-profits and for-profits in competition though, is a good idea. As I've said, I don't think a public option would hurt.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by reb To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The issue was whether people favor or oppose a public option, not whether they favor or oppose the current bills. Those aren't the same question, especially when you consider that one of the biggest difference between the House and Senate bills is that the Senate version lacks a public option.

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What isn't sufficiently addressed is the insanity regarding mal-practice suits and the astronomical insurance premiums doctors pay (and the cost they in turn pass on to patients). Mal-practice laws need to revised.

Do you have any numbers or sources on that? I have read that malpractice costs translate into well under 1% of total health care costs.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
says malpractice costs are the lowest they've been in 30 years, and are continuing to fall. It also says that states that adopted strong tort reform had similar changes in costs as states that did not-- in other words, tort reform doesn't do anything.

Limiting the liability of doctors wouldn't hurt, but if the costs of malpractice insurance really are that low, it sounds like it would be a waste of time to screw around with something that has virtually no effect on costs.

[thod]

If we were to accept all this, why are US health care costs double per capita what they are in comprehensive overseas systems whilst leaving the US ranked 32nd in terms of health care?

Is it greedy doctors paying themselves way more than they earn elsewhere?

Is it too much admin staff? (the right wingers say a public scheme would suffer this)

It should not be too tough to look at the US systems costs and those overseas to find where the problem lies.

[reb]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The issue was whether people favor or oppose a public option, not whether they favor or oppose the current bills. Those aren't the same question, especially when you consider that one of the biggest difference between the House and Senate bills is that the Senate version lacks a public option.

Elston, i think the two factors 'public option' and 'current bill' are linked at some level in poll numbers. i know some individuals who oppose any changes with a so-called 'public option', but would not without such a 'thing' contained in the language. i can't confirm or deny whether the senate version contains such a thing; haven't read it, can't keep up with the changes. not to mention, the democrats had not released the newest draft as of the other day.

[Arjay51]

It is not worth passing since it is a partisan effort in total.

No one looked at repairing/regulating the current system, just throw it out and start over in spite of what people say.

In its' current state, or at least what we are led to believe is its current state, it is nothing more than the start of a power grab by government (no, not just the liberals) with an eye toward future and continuing grabs.

Fix what we have, eliminate waste with what we have, eliminate corruption and fraud with what we have and all the stated goals of this "reform" would be accomplished without the terrible increase in bureaucracy.

[Blse]

Originally Posted by Arjay51 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is not worth passing since it is a partisan effort in total. No one looked at repairing/regulating the current system, just throw it out and start over in spite of what people say. In its' current state, or at least what we are led to believe is its current state, it is nothing more than the start of a power grab by government (no, not just the liberals) with an eye toward future and continuing grabs. Fix what we have, eliminate waste with what we have, eliminate corruption and fraud with what we have and all the stated goals of this "reform" would be accomplished without the terrible increase in bureaucracy.

It's not a completely new start. The current reform proposal is precisely that: reform. As in reforming an already existent institution. The bill would fix current problems in the system, not replace it with something completely new such as single payer system. As for the increase in bureaucracy - I would need to see some figures. Also keep in mind that corporations and non-profits, who provide (and will continue to provide) most insurance are bureaucracies as well.

---------- Post added 12-20-2009 at 04:27 PM ----------

Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you have any numbers or sources on that? I have read that malpractice costs translate into well under 1% of total health care costs. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. says malpractice costs are the lowest they've been in 30 years, and are continuing to fall. It also says that states that adopted strong tort reform had similar changes in costs as states that did not-- in other words, tort reform doesn't do anything. Limiting the liability of doctors wouldn't hurt, but if the costs of malpractice insurance really are that low, it sounds like it would be a waste of time to screw around with something that has virtually no effect on costs.

Thanks for the link. I have to admit my reason for that statement was largely anecdotal evidence.

[Mader]

By all accounts, millions of people will still be without health insurance. Who are those millions? I can't seem to find the answer.

By all accounts, Medicare will be cut by $500 Billion. Please explain how anyone can cut $500 Billion and still provide the same services. And have we figured in the increased over 65 population that the aging babyboomers bring?

If you get hurt by a doctor/hospital, you can sue. The attorney who represents you, generally speaking, get 50% of any damages awarded to you. So, if you fall and break your leg, sue and get $5 million dollars, your attorney gets $2.5 million of that. Nice work if you can get it- tort reform should be included in any bill.

Are the costs of medications addressed in this bill? Will Medicare be able to pay less for the medications for all those over 65's?

[Krazy P]

My best guess for the increased tax that I will pay next year as a result of the new health care bill is $8,225.

Guess how I am going to economize?

I will reduce my charitable giving by that amount next year. Since it takes me roughly $12,000 now of earnings to make $8,225 of of money I give to charity, that is the amount I will have to reduce my charitable giving to make up the increased tax.

Since I already give more than Biden, Gore or any of the other "sensitive, caring" progressive minds in politics, I think this is the best way to handle it.

This practical real life situation is my example to show that nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. In this case, people like me.

And people like me adjust their behavior accordingly - in ways that can not always be predicted - except that there will be changes.

So, just to sum up, my taxes are going up, my health care is going to be worse, and my charitable giving will decrease (resulting in the charities that I give to having less money to help people).

[gestalt]

KP: How is your health care going to be worse?

[Lycurgus]

I give my charitable donations in bulk, at the end of each year. Makes it easier for accounting purposes.

I don't know how much more I'll pay in taxes, but after I find out, I presume quite a few things will be cut out of my budget. Luckily, I'm moving to a state with no income tax in the near future so at least I'll have that going for me.

[phej]

Why are you putting the cart before the horse? The president hasn't signed anything into law quite yet.

[zibber]

Krazy P,

Would you agree that you are far better off than the majority of people living in your country? Are you implying that these people deserve to be in the situation they are in?

Are you aware that without the widespread neoliberalism of the past few decades, you wouldn't make as much money as you do today? (Are you horrified by the idea of not having an economic elite?)

Finally, does it make (ethical) sense to give less money to charity only to spite politicians you don't agree with? Did the charities have anything to do with the proposed new law? Why did you give them money in the first place?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Krazy P, Would you agree that you are far better off than the majority of people living in your country? Are you implying that these people deserve to be in the situation they are in?

It isn't a matter of deserving or not. It's a matter of whether they have a right to demand $8225 of his income.

	Are you aware that without the widespread neoliberalism of the past few decades, you wouldn't make as much money as you do today? (Are you horrified by the idea of not having an economic elite?)

This is just dumb. Our economic success began in the '50s with the industrial boom, was eroded as liberal policies in the '60s and '70s attacked our economy, and began to boom again when a conservative forced congress to lower marginal tax rates and opened up the free market flow of money to create wealth for everyone, and this continued (with a slight hiccup caused by Bush 41) until 2000, when oil prices took off, followed by 9/11, some horrible domestic policy by GWShurb, and the housing bubble (caused by liberal legislation) of 2008, and about to be made worse by socialists pushing failed policies and legislation.

	Finally, does it make (ethical) sense to give less money to charity only to spite politicians you don't agree with? Did the charities have anything to do with the proposed new law? Why did you give them money in the first place?

Where do you suggest he take the money from? His food budget?

[Dodeca]

I get $450 a month from SSI. Basically its Food, Shelter, Internet.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is just dumb. Our economic success began in the '50s with the industrial boom, was eroded as liberal policies in the '60s and '70s attacked our economy, and began to boom again when a conservative forced congress to lower marginal tax rates and opened up the free market flow of money to create wealth for everyone, and this continued (with a slight hiccup caused by Bush 41) until 2000, when oil prices took off, followed by 9/11, some horrible domestic policy by GWShurb, and the housing bubble (caused by liberal legislation) of 2008, and about to be made worse by socialists pushing failed policies and legislation.

I am understandably prohibited from making personal attacks, but I want to suggest that you do some research on the terms "neoliberal" and "socialist". I sincerely think this would advance your understanding of contemporary political and economic idiom.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am understandably prohibited from making personal attacks, but I want to suggest that you do some research on the terms "neoliberal" and "socialist". I sincerely think this would advance your understanding of contemporary political and economic idiom.

The way you phrased the question, I wasn't sure you understood the term. I had assumed that you thought that the social policies of the 1960s and 1970s somehow were responsible for economic growth. My bad.

But given that we know that Reagan-style economic policy (minus the congressional failures to constrain the deficit) produces wealth, why would we continue to attack the economic basis for our previous successes by increasing taxes on the very folks who drive our economy.