Brother, you need to pay attention.

 

The first 4 or 5 responses were basically posters aghast that such a tactic would be used. I pointed out its been used in the recent past. So you either disagree with that point of you're reaching. Which one?

 

And still you won't answer a direct question.

 

Do you (not anyone else, you) favor the Democrats fast tracking this legislation.

And still you won't answer a direct question.

 

Do you (not anyone else, you) favor the Democrats fast tracking this legislation.

 

In theory, no.

Its my understanding that as part of this process they need to find ways to pay for the expense (in this case, healthcare). It sounds like they will use mandatory carbon credits in order to generate the revenue. That could be a problem. They may not have enough votes to get that done. If not, I don't think the other side (healthcare) can pass in this process.

 

Of course, there are a lot of arcane rules so what do I know.

Its my understanding that as part of this process they need to find ways to pay for the expense (in this case, healthcare). It sounds like they will use mandatory carbon credits in order to generate the revenue. That could be a problem. They may not have enough votes to get that done. If not, I don't think the other side (healthcare) can pass in this process.

 

Of course, there are a lot of arcane rules so what do I know.

 

I thought the carbon taxes, of which I am against, were to go to build green energy and to be used as rebates to the US citizens. Another example of switch and bait, government bureaucracy, and wasteful spending.

Just another nail in the coffin for Obama getting re elected. The Dems keep this up and the Reps may not only win the WH in 4 years but regain control of the Hill. You want to think that politicians would learn from the mistakes of the other party, but it's evident that too many political leaders on both sides of the aisle just aren't very bright.

 

And so the pendulum continues it's wide swing back and forth from the right to the left and probably back to the right in 4 years. And while I took a shot at some of our politicians in my prior paragraph, a large responsibility lies with the voters. Any one with much common sense knew this would be happening when Obama got elected; if you voted for Obama but are disappointed with this development and others so far (like the rather large stimulus bill, release of the CIA waterboarding memo), you have no one to blame but yourself. One day voters will quit just giving mouth service to wanting moderate political leaders and actually start voting that way. In my opinion, we wasted a prime opportunity to elect some one that is moderate, but further because of the composition of the current Congress, would be forced to act in a moderate manner. In stead, we asked for and are getting what we as a nation deserve.

 

The only real silver lining in this mess is the knowledge that this country can survive whomever we elect to lead us.

Looks like this travesty is going to happen.

 

 

You know that nice "tax cut" we are all getting right now? Kiss it good bye next year.

 

LINK

 

This is really scary that they can push something like this through with no real debate.

Just another nail in the coffin for Obama getting re elected. The Dems keep this up and the Reps may not only win the WH in 4 years but regain control of the Hill. You want to think that politicians would learn from the mistakes of the other party, but it's evident that too many political leaders on both sides of the aisle just aren't very bright.

 

And so the pendulum continues it's wide swing back and forth from the right to the left and probably back to the right in 4 years. And while I took a shot at some of our politicians in my prior paragraph, a large responsibility lies with the voters. Any one with much common sense knew this would be happening when Obama got elected; if you voted for Obama but are disappointed with this development and others so far (like the rather large stimulus bill, release of the CIA waterboarding memo), you have no one to blame but yourself. One day voters will quit just giving mouth service to wanting moderate political leaders and actually start voting that way. In my opinion, we wasted a prime opportunity to elect some one that is moderate, but further because of the composition of the current Congress, would be forced to act in a moderate manner. In stead, we asked for and are getting what we as a nation deserve.

 

The only real silver lining in this mess is the knowledge that this country can survive whomever we elect to lead us.

 

I disagree LN, I think Obama and many congressional democrats were elected on a platform of healthcare reform as one of the foundations. IMO the majority of American's myself included want this and it will not hurt them. I can see it further damaging the GOP if they are not willing to at least compromise a little on the issue which it appears unlikely. I don't like this process now or when the republicans have used it but if the other side refuses to compromise I guess majority rules.

Wait until the limitations that are placed one Medicare patients are placed one everyone. This is going to be a nightmare.

 

Since you are so in favor of this do you have any idea how Medicare works? How about the restrictions and bureaucratic BS that every provider has to deal with?

Add healthcare to the rest of the trillions and I don't see how EVERYONE'S taxes don't go up, and significantly. Raising taxes for those earning $250,000 or more just isn't going to cover it. Selling the higher taxes will be the test for Obama and the democrats.

Wait until the limitations that are placed one Medicare patients are placed one everyone. This is going to be a nightmare.

 

Since you are so in favor of this do you have any idea how Medicare works? How about the restrictions and bureaucratic BS that every provider has to deal with?

 

You are such the expert why don't you expain it to me. While your at it see if you can explain why Private insurers are continually jacking up premiums and deductiables while covering less and less. The majority of people don't buy the scare tatics of the government being involved in health care. Most people have been on the wrong end of insurance companies practices and government intervention can't be anything but a positive.

 

Some excerpts from an article I read just today....

 

The result of leaving health care reform to the insurance industry is that health insurance premiums have gone up six times faster than wages in the past nine years. Those dollars are buying skimpier health coverage with high deductibles and caps on benefits, resulting in more and more insured people being forced into medical bankruptcy. Businesses that are struggling to meet health care costs in a global economy and dropping coverage, so much so that now 1 out of 3Americans under the age of 65 has been uninsured at some time in the past two years. Health care eats up 16% of our economy, up from 11% when the nation decided to leave the private insurance in charge.

 

The insurance industry and their defenders on the ideological right are resorting to the same name tired name calling that worked for them the past, "government-run" health care. It's a desperate attempt to fend off a sensible government role in making health care affordable to our families, businesses and nation. This time it won't work. The President and leadership in Congress -- and the American -- people support a two-pronged role for government. One, set rules so that the private insurance industry can't continue to put profits before our health. Two, offer a choice of private insurance or a public health insurance plan, so people aren't stuck only with private insurance.

 

The fact is that if private insurers controlled health care inflation as well as Medicare has over the past decade, businesses and families would see much lower premiums than they do today. Between 1997 and 2006, per enrollee spending in private insurance grew 59% faster than spending in Medicare. And Medicare has the tougher job, because it cares for the most expensive population: the elderly and those with serious disabilities.

 

One reason that private insurers have gotten away with skyrocketing premium increases is that they have a near monopoly across the nation. According to data from the American Medical Association, in virtually every metropolitan area in the country (96%) the insurance market is dominated by so few insurers so as to be considered "highly-concentrated." A public health insurance option coupled with a regulated private insurance market will break the stranglehold a handful of companies have on the insurance market. Most importantly, under these reforms consumers will be able to vote with their feet when their health care plan -- public or private -- doesn't work for them.

 

In fact, the main argument that the industry and the right has with offering the choice of a public health insurance option is that too many Americans will choose it. If private insurers are really more efficient than government, they shouldn't have any trouble competing with a public health insurance plan. It's the height of irony that the defenders of free markets are opposed to competition. But when it comes to health care, which is a public good, public insurers really are more efficient.

 

 

The American public gets it. In a national survey of voters taken last year, four-out-of-five voters (79%) said that the insurance industry puts profits before people. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this week found that two-thirds (67%) of U.S. residents "strongly" or "somewhat" favor establishing a public health insurance option "similar to Medicare."

The poll paired the strongest conservative attacks -- "rationing", "government bureaucracy", losing private health insurance and being dumped into a public plan -- against the arguments for the choice of a public health insurance plan. In every case the public favors the pro-public health insurance option, in most cases by margins of better than two-to-one. For example, 61% agree that a public health insurance plan will be better able to control costs by using its purchasing power to drive competition. Voters reject by wide margins claims that a public health insurance plan will limit access, with 66% of voters agreeing that a public health insurance plan will provide an affordable option with a wide choice of doctors.

Where was that article from?

 

Do you know how Medicare has controled their costs? They have cut what they reimburse providers to a point that the company I work for LOSES money with every Medicare patient.

 

I would put to you that most people have no idea how Medicare works, nor do they know how much they actually pay their healthcare providers. I agree to some extent that insurance companies bear a lot of the blame for medial costs but I don't really care how many articles you show me like the one you quoted here. I have seen first hand what government control of one part of medical care has done to providers and I fear that government control of all aspects of health care will be disasterous.

 

I also firmly believe that the Dems are fast tracking this because they know that if there is healthy debate on this the flaws with government controlled health care will be brought out and the last thing they want is for people to understand what's going on.

Where was that article from?

 

Do you know how Medicare has controled their costs? They have cut what they reimburse providers to a point that the company I work for LOSES money with every Medicare patient.

 

I would put to you that most people have no idea how Medicare works, nor do they know how much they actually pay their healthcare providers. I agree to some extent that insurance companies bear a lot of the blame for medial costs but I don't really care how many articles you show me like the one you quoted here. I have seen first hand what government control of one part of medical care has done to providers and I fear that government control of all aspects of health care will be disasterous.

 

I also firmly believe that the Dems are fast tracking this because they know that if there is healthy debate on this the flaws with government controlled health care will be brought out and the last thing they want is for people to understand what's going on.

 

 

There are many doctors who no longer accept Medicare for that reason.

In a national survey of voters taken last year, four-out-of-five voters (79%) said that the insurance industry puts profits before people.

This is the crux of the issue, and many other issues as well. There is no doubt in my mind that insurance companies are acting in their own self-interest, trying to make a profit. However, don't you see that government acts in their own self-interest as well? Do you really think that politicians are in it "for the people"? No, they are in it for themselves just like everyone else. Why do you think Washington is dominated by special interests?

 

Government and private parties act in their own self-interest. The only difference is that, in order to make huge profits, private parties take huge risk, and lose sometimes. When government loses, they either print more money (decreasing the real wealth of everyone) or take more money from us. Furthermore, who gets these huge profits? American people. From doctors to actuaries to insurance salesman to your common stockholder.

There are many doctors who no longer accept Medicare for that reason.

 

Correct.

 

Furthermore, analysis of the pay-for-performance methods used by many bureaucratically-proposed health care options have had terrible results. According to a report from Health Affairs, Another report in the most recent Health Affairs evaluating some 35,000 physicians caring for 6.2 million patients in California revealed that doctors dropped noncompliant patients, or refused to treat people with complicated illnesses involving many organs, since their outcomes would make their statistics look bad. (NOTE: the article from the Health Affairs site costs money; the quote that I have is from the WSJ, which is another article worth reading).

Edited April 28, 200917 yr by cch5432

You are such the expert why don't you expain it to me. While your at it see if you can explain why Private insurers are continually jacking up premiums and deductiables while covering less and less. The majority of people don't buy the scare tatics of the government being involved in health care. Most people have been on the wrong end of insurance companies practices and government intervention can't be anything but a positive.

Some excerpts from an article I read just today....

 

The result of leaving health care reform to the insurance industry is that health insurance premiums have gone up six times faster than wages in the past nine years. Those dollars are buying skimpier health coverage with high deductibles and caps on benefits, resulting in more and more insured people being forced into medical bankruptcy. Businesses that are struggling to meet health care costs in a global economy and dropping coverage, so much so that now 1 out of 3Americans under the age of 65 has been uninsured at some time in the past two years. Health care eats up 16% of our economy, up from 11% when the nation decided to leave the private insurance in charge.

 

The insurance industry and their defenders on the ideological right are resorting to the same name tired name calling that worked for them the past, "government-run" health care. It's a desperate attempt to fend off a sensible government role in making health care affordable to our families, businesses and nation. This time it won't work. The President and leadership in Congress -- and the American -- people support a two-pronged role for government. One, set rules so that the private insurance industry can't continue to put profits before our health. Two, offer a choice of private insurance or a public health insurance plan, so people aren't stuck only with private insurance.

 

The fact is that if private insurers controlled health care inflation as well as Medicare has over the past decade, businesses and families would see much lower premiums than they do today. Between 1997 and 2006, per enrollee spending in private insurance grew 59% faster than spending in Medicare. And Medicare has the tougher job, because it cares for the most expensive population: the elderly and those with serious disabilities.

 

One reason that private insurers have gotten away with skyrocketing premium increases is that they have a near monopoly across the nation. According to data from the American Medical Association, in virtually every metropolitan area in the country (96%) the insurance market is dominated by so few insurers so as to be considered "highly-concentrated." A public health insurance option coupled with a regulated private insurance market will break the stranglehold a handful of companies have on the insurance market. Most importantly, under these reforms consumers will be able to vote with their feet when their health care plan -- public or private -- doesn't work for them.

 

In fact, the main argument that the industry and the right has with offering the choice of a public health insurance option is that too many Americans will choose it. If private insurers are really more efficient than government, they shouldn't have any trouble competing with a public health insurance plan. It's the height of irony that the defenders of free markets are opposed to competition. But when it comes to health care, which is a public good, public insurers really are more efficient.

 

 

The American public gets it. In a national survey of voters taken last year, four-out-of-five voters (79%) said that the insurance industry puts profits before people. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this week found that two-thirds (67%) of U.S. residents "strongly" or "somewhat" favor establishing a public health insurance option "similar to Medicare."

The poll paired the strongest conservative attacks -- "rationing", "government bureaucracy", losing private health insurance and being dumped into a public plan -- against the arguments for the choice of a public health insurance plan. In every case the public favors the pro-public health insurance option, in most cases by margins of better than two-to-one. For example, 61% agree that a public health insurance plan will be better able to control costs by using its purchasing power to drive competition. Voters reject by wide margins claims that a public health insurance plan will limit access, with 66% of voters agreeing that a public health insurance plan will provide an affordable option with a wide choice of doctors.

 

I had some trouble getting past the bolded, but I pressed onward. Would you care to share where this article came from?