Also, I just love this threat from republicans that if healthcare passes, they will run on repealing it in November. oh please do!
This is more frightening than most would like to admit. I have no clue what ___________ is, but I strongly support it. Wow. We are doomed.
From the polls I've seen, that's not the way it works. When asked if people can describe the public option, most of them can't. But when given an outline of how the public option works, most people are in favor of it.
In addition to what Steve_Francis_rules stated, this type of scenario works for most of the health care bill. Specifically, the fact that most people do not support the Senate bill, but when told what is in it they support nearly all of the individual policies. I think it's a commentary on the usefulness of this type of polling more than anything else. I don't expect average Americans to know the details of these things, and I don't care all that much what they think about when it comes to whether or not a bill passes.
they don't support death squads j/k I think its a commentary on how the democrats screwed this thing up from the beginning. a thousands pages of mis information, will do that. its easy for the republicans to hold the thousand pages of the actual bill and scare people when the dems have floated the simple ideals of the bill. I really hope obama learned from this. i think he has because he is also taking back some of the message on the stimulus if people are paying attention edit: "have not floated the simple ideals"
Buffet wants another type of Bill: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/01/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6255684.shtml Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor also known as the "Oracle of Omaha," says he would support the current Senate health care bill. But he says he would be prefer a "Plan C" which focuses more on controlling "out of control" health care costs. Buffett, in a CNBC interview on Monday morning, compared rising U.S. health care costs to a "tapeworm eating at our economic body" that is "untenable over time." "If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we've got, or plan B… the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill," Buffett said. "But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs." Buffett said that U.S. health care costs are close to 17 percent of overall Gross Domestic Product, which in other countries health costs are 10 percent of GDP or lower. He also noted that America has fewer doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita than to much of the world. "Everything we produce for export, everything we compete with that comes imported in this country, everything is bearing that cost, and it's a cost that the rest of the world isn't bearing," he added, citing auto executives who said there was $1,500 of health costs built into the price of U.S. cars. Despite saying that he would support the Senate bill because he feels it is better than the status quo, it was clear he would prefer a new approach. "Unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much. And we have to have a fundamental change. We have to have something that will end the constant increase in medical costs as a percentage of GDP," he said. "If I were President Obama, I would just show this chart of what's been happening and say this is the tapeworm that's eating at American competitiveness. And I would say that one way or another, we're going to attack costs, costs, costs." (You can watch the interview at left or read the transcript here.) As for how to control costs, Buffett pointed to changing the incentives within the health care system. "We've got payment for procedures and not payment for results," he said. Buffett said he thought the issue of reducing costs was more important than insuring more people, which is a key aim of Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress. "I believe in insuring more people. But I don't believe in insuring more people till you attack the cost aspect of this," he said. Buffett also addressed the overall state of the economy in the interview which included questions from viewers. He said that while the economy is getting better, job growth will remain slow. "It's getting better, but at a very, very slow rate," he said.
I thought this news piece really showed how complicated health care reform is in a simple manner. This American Life
Well, yeah. That, too. Poor messaging and poor political choices can be blamed for the state of public opinion as well. That said, if the messaging was better and the people had a more favorable view of the bill(s), but understood them just as poorly, it would be just as useless to anything other than politics.
I'd agree with this statement. I wish the cost containment was given as the driving force behind this reform charge. I don't know what is more politically beneficial, and I also don't know that trying to reduce costs doesn't go hand in hand with the extra coverage they are achieving, but my personal priority preference is reducing the costs to the government first, reducing the costs to the people second, getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" type rules third, and covering more people fourth.
Cost containment is basically rationing. Good freaking luck getting the American public to buy into that. Buffett is exactly right but has anyone asked why is it all so expensive? Let's see if someone is uninsured they go to the ER after an accident and can't afford the $10,000 bill they don't pay it. The hospital has to raise rates on everything else to make up the difference. Ever wonder why your aspirin cost $50-$100? So again getting everyone insured keeps costs down. On top of this we consume too many unnecessary services, procedures, and medications. Of course whose to say if an expensive new procedure is beneficial or worth the extra money. If grandma can survive one more week but it takes $100,000 worth of care is it worth it? Not as a policy for the country but who's going to tell grandma too bad? No one because then you would be a death panel! (cue the evil laugh). Another consideration, and God I wish Obama would at least bring this up, is to ban prescription medication advertisements. There's a waste of Billions of dollars that could help to lower costs and on top of that you are pushing the general public to pressure their doctors to give it to them. So you're layering on admin costs and pushing overmedication all at once! Brilliant!
Not necessarily, and you mentioned examples in the rest of your post. Fraud/abuse/waste is constantly identified as a source of cost containment because it is a source of potential cost containment. Even without taking away Grandma's last week of care you can gain a lot without rationing. Getting people to get insurance and go to the doctor instead of the emergency room is a form of cost containment as well, and that's hardly rationing. Finding ways to reduce the prices of prescription drugs or other medical supplies and procedures provides cost containment. That's not rationing, either. All that is the cost containment they should focus on that is not rationing, at least not in the sense that the American public wouldn't be supportive of it (unless they were spun as "dangerous/evil rationing" for political gain).
Getting everyone insured is not going to keep costs down in the long run. You have not addressed why insurance is so high, just a cause and effect on why prices are 1000x than off the shelf. One of the primary reasons why health care is so high is because we as a nation live a very unhealthy lifestyle. I should not pay for someone with cancer or emphysema due to tobacco abuse nor should i pay for someones health issues who can't put the fork down. Until this is addressed seriously, health care will continue to go up. I never liked the term death panel. The reality is that we can't provide cutting edge health care to 100% of the population. You can call it death panels or health care rationing, but it the end, its simple reality. 100% agree. If its a prescription, it should not be advertised.
With universal coverage though people could get help with programs that help them quit smoking and eating problems. Also having coverage would also encourage more use of preventive treatments that are far less costly than treating conditions when it becomes catastrophic. Back to your example though about whether you should be helping to pay for someone whose lifestyle caused them to need medical care. I don't know what sports you play but if you play basketball a leg or shoulder injury is very possible. In that case then those in your insurance pool, or if you don;t have insurance the taxpayers and/or other patients at the hospital, would be paying for your care as a consequence of your lifestyle.
Some days I can't figure out if your posts are just trolling or if you really are this proudly ignorant - but it's apparent that either you or your character doesn't understand the fundamental basis for the very concept of insurance, and probably have nothing useful to offer any discussion thereof.
You're exactly right that's called a mandate. True as I mentioned (but no one in DC is mentioning...) But to be brutally honest those two reforms are not enough. Rationing, for all of the negative connotation the terms implies, is needed. You need to look at a procedure and say does this work, is it safe and most important is it worth the price? We take on too many unnecessary services. It needs to stop. I support preventative measures. But there we go again advocating for the government to tell people what to do. (Eat right and exercise).
