The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 3

Originally Posted by groverat

If the private corporate world could do it right, we would already be saving money, not careening toward the financial abyss.

Wait...

Originally Posted by jimmac

Take it from someone in their 50's who just had a major health problem ( bad hypertension 218 over 145 at it's worst 2 years ago ). Yes it's under control however I know first hand doctors do unnecessary tests....alot! Probably due to kickbacks.

This is exactly what Obama was talking about last night. Making decisions based on money not medical need.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Take it from someone in their 50's who just had a major health problem ( bad hypertension 218 over 145 at it's worst 2 years ago ). Yes it's under control however I know first hand doctors do unnecessary tests....alot! Probably due to kickbacks.

This is exactly what Obama was talking about last night. Making decisions based on money not medical need.

President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.

Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.

A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:

OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.

Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.

It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.

He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."

He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."

OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."

OBAMA: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

THE FACTS: The facts are in dispute between black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the white police sergeant who arrested him at his Cambridge, Mass., home when officers went there to investigate a reported break-in. But this much is clear: Gates wasn't arrested for being in his own home, as Obama implies, but for allegedly being belligerent when the sergeant demanded his identification. The president did mention that the professor was charged with disorderly conduct. Charges were dropped.

OBAMA: "If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."

THE FACTS: Obama's numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president's budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

Originally Posted by Northgate

But suddenly government can't be trusted with our health care.

President Obama again trumpeted his claim last night, that we need government-run health insurance to help keep the insurance companies honest. He should check with his own Justice Department about dishonesty in government-run health plans.

The state and city governments in New York this week agreed to pay a $540-million fine, $440-million from the state and $100-million from the city, to settle accusations that they defrauded Medicaid. Its a record-high Medicaid recovery from a public entity.

According to the Department of Justice press release, the governments knowingly submitted fraudulent claims.

The case had been under seal for ten years, according to media reports. But it wasnt government that uncovered the mess. A speech therapist, Hedy M. Cirrincione, blew the whistle ten years ago and started private whistleblower lawsuits which the government eventually took over. A federal audit questioned over $1-billion in claims from the New York governments.

The whistle-blower is to receive $10-million of the recovery for her efforts.

As Reuters reports:

When looking into areas of medicine that lack government involvement, prices continue to come down and quality continues to go up.

Of course you're ignoring how government efforts distort the market.

Compare the cost (inflation adjusted) and quality for something like Lasik eye surgery now compared to 10-15 years ago.

Originally Posted by groverat

In what sense does Lasik "lack government involvement"? It is regulated by the government.

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between regulation and management.

It is considered elective and cosmetic and thus does not have any sort of government entity referring people for it and distorting market mechanisms for determining price.

If the government were out of the health care field, I have no doubt that the wheelchair that grandma would have gotten in the 1960's when her crippled up arthritic joints no longer allowed her to walk would be both cheaper and of higher quality when sold today.

Let the government handle the percentage it already has now without bankrupting us and then they have the credibility to ask for more.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

What kickbacks do you think they are getting? What pathway does the money take and how would you respond to the notion that they were actually practicing defensive medicine?

Let's not touch on self referral.

Well there used to be this concept called saving. It was what we did before we became the world's largest debtor nation.

So how does that suddenly become solved by adding in lower-risk groups unless you are just being honest and talking about "health" transfers just like you do income transfers?

The real point of all this is to add those other groups so that their lower risk can subsidize the higher risk.

Republicans have put forward an answer to this dozens of times. It is called health savings accounts which also addresses rewarding positive behavior as well.

People aren't demanding a public option for home and auto insurance. No one is decrying a "crisis" there.

The fact that not every future contingency can be planned for by everyone has become the excuse for no one to save for any future contingency.

Just like this discussion, we have health care provisions to deal with the exceptions, the extremes, the high risk categories.

Grandma be it by herself, by her family, by her local relief organization or church could easily afford a $100-200 wheel chair.

It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean I want it for my children or for myself.

If it can't be solved then why devote hundreds of billions towards it?

Now people can choose to start at 62 (with a penalty) but often live to an average of 76 years old. If it were adjusted for the original intent, people would start receiving benefits at 75 or so.

If the government had the ability to ration for the elderly, then people would trust it to ration for the rest of us, but they don't have that ability.

There is no bit of rationalizing that can fix the reasoning that throwing more people into an inefficient mechanism will somehow make it efficient. It will never work.

Shelter is a life requirement and insurance on that shelter whether paid for by the owner when you rent or by you as an owner is a requirement.

The point is I can get hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of targeted insurance for very cheap but if they were expected to be like our current health insurance which are PLANS more than insurance, they would be very expensive.

"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal government the authority to administer healthcare?

If it doesn't, then the 10th Amendment applies.

Governor Perry of Texas has already raised the possibility of invoking states' rights under the 10th amendment and rejecting nationalized health care.

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

Originally Posted by jamac

Jazzguru dude, have you ever had major surgery? and I don't mean Cmaj.

Strident declarations aside, the statistics on national savings rate show different.

We have tens of million insured for a multitude of reasons including the choice of being willing to pocket the money and accept the risk. I provided the statistics. Denials don't refute that. Thousands go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons. They don't just discharge medical bills when they file for it. They discharge almost all debts.

Amazing isn't it? It is almost like death is the default state for us all eventually or something like that. It is Utopian thought to believe otherwise.

It isn't a safety net when "quality of life" issues cause it to pay for and supply things that are about much more than falling and needing a net.

It has done a good job but not within a cost containment model. Rather they have run up huge debts and the projections for the continuation of those debts in the future show that the current model is not sustainable.

Obama has not suggested a solution where a person pays for their own insurance now.

I think what you fail to see here is that they are a requirement.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?

Originally Posted by jamac

If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?

Originally Posted by jamac

If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?

Anecdotal : (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?

Simple one sentence restatements with nothing added aren't worth the time.

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

...

It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save.

Or to take an example that can occur in everyday life: suppose one hears that the man next door is ill and penni¬less. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine, if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out. But this does not mean that one must support him from then on, nor that one must spend one’s life look¬ing for starving men to help.

In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune hap-pening to others. He cannot live his life by the guidance of rules applicable only to conditions under which human sur-vival is impossible.

In the past 17 years, no other motorized wheel chair manufacturer has provided more Medicare reimbursed power wheelchairs directly to their customers than Hoveround. There are no “middle-men” involved. If you pre-qualify, Medicare may cover 80 percent of the cost of your new Hoveround wheelchair, and your supplemental insurance may cover the remaining 20 percent. In fact, 9 out of 10 Hoveround owners received their HOVEROUND power wheelchair at little or no cost.

Who Qualifies for Medicare?

Individuals who:
• are at least 65 years old.
• are disabled and qualify for disability (may be under 65 years old).
• are a legal resident or US citizen.
• have worked in a Medicare-covered employment for at least 10 years. (If their spouse meets these criteria, they will be covered even if they themselves do not meet these criteria.)

Originally Posted by groverat

An intellectual fraud with a cultish following would be nothing if not wildly contradictory within a few sentences.

Exactly who are those who receive no help and why would they not receive it?

Untenable? You claim a person for whom not a single family member, friend or relief organization would lift a finger to help. Who is this hypothetical person?

Making up a person no one would help but I guess whom deserves help is nothing more than theft looking for a rationalization.

Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) is all over the news today thanks to this gem of a quote:


Congressman Conyers, I would ask you: "what good is VOTING on a bill you haven't read"?

Here is some sound wisdom from one of our founding fathers: