Employers can stop providing health care today. Large employers will be required to provide health insurance to their employees. And small ones don't have to, but they have to pay a penalty if they don't or get an exemption. This prevents small companies that make money from avoiding paying health insurance to their employees. There isn't any reason why a public option can't sell insurance for a few hundred dollars a month. If that public service is buying insurance in mass it will break even since they won't have overhead costs other insurance companies do Of course it might not be as widely accepted or a "PPO" style plan, but rather HMO. I use to think people would switch over but now I don't. The reason is if employers start dumping their plans, people will demand more in salary to pay the cost anyway. At the end of the day, it's cheaper for a company and an employee to buy through the employer for tax reasons and because of the way the legislation will be implemented.
Pretty sad, but in today's market, it's hard for me to imagine workers demanding more pay despite less benefits.
To Graham's credit, he has shown that he wants to work with the president on numerous occasions http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17461.html (excuse the title of the article... just using it as an example). He also voted FOR the confirmation of Sotomayor.
Never watched fox news before in my life and am far from a conservative, but way to stay classy and resort to making this about perceived political ideologies. Fact...medicare does not pay hospitals or docs nearly enough to cover their services...efficiency at it's finest...pay $.50 on the dollar and have the docs eat the other half
That strikes me as a rather queer statement. Still, Graham has a gay attitude about working with Dems...
Glynch is very easy to strongly agree and disagree with based on certain topics. He is as far to the left as you get on this board. He won't cross the line with personal attacks but classy is not his MO.
I think it's already there. When I was consulting, I mark up my fee's to include costs for health care and vacation anyway. In a salary'd position, let's say I average $100/hr plus benefits. For a free-lance position, my rate would go to $115. Point is, companies pay for it regardless. Health care is a job consideration. If employers offer less of it or worse, employees do make decisions to choose jobs with better benefits - especially ones with families. Top talent wants top benefits. My brother works for a small company, and their health insurance plan sucks. So he added another $2k in his last review to his salary request to cover out of pocket medical expenses. At first, they refused. Then he got an offer from another company, they eneded up matchin and he's making $14k more. I don't think employers will drop health insurance - at least not overnight and in the course of a few years even. If quality health insurance isn't affordable by the middle class then the whole health system will collapse anyway. We can't keep going with a sham - which is what he have. Do you know that your health coverage really isn't that secure? People get dropped all the time when they get really sick. Also, most insurance plans don't cover you 100%. They only do 80%. So you can end up brankrupt even with employer based health insurance. That's what happens. We are all more at risk then we realize. And only realize it when the crap hits the fan. Then only do we know what a sham the system is and what the real risks are...problem is, the majority still plods along in blissful ignorance thinking their health care is better and greater than what it is. Think about it. We aren't efficient, and doctors, insurers, and hospitals make more money here than anywhere else. You think in Britain you have insurance companies rolling in the dough like they do here? They don't. So where do you think all your money goes? It's not going to pay for the actual care. All the administrative, executive salaries, all the marketing and lobbying, all of that sunk cost. And you are sold a policy that has to pay for all of that stuff - you think that policy is really all that good?
This is a winner in a meaningless sense. Medicare still has administrative costs much less than private insurance. Medicare insures a much older i.e expensive population than private insurance as a whole. To have a winner you must compare apples to apples in this case compare admin costs to admin costs or "waste" in Medicare vs waste in private insurance, for example unnecessary tests or procedures in both.
The demographic served has no bearing on whether or not the agency is wasting or spending inefficiently. Sure, medical services provided to older patients may be expensive, but that doesn't mean money can't be spent efficiently, and it doesn't mean that the government should be excused for wasting at least 451 billion.
I'm sorry to accuse you incorrectly of watching Fox News, I would hate to be accused of that inaccurately. Sorry to sidetack the discussion. You have yet to cite inefficiency in Medicare despite claiming it again. Please provide documentation as to how Medicare only pays 50% of costs to docs and hospitals on all services. If it is just a few cite which. It is possible that without Medicare doctors could charge seniors significantly more and that might frustrate some of them.
Another outspoken critic of Obama's plans for reform softening as a result of the speech. As the writer points out, getting Conrad and Nelson is no small feat (though I'm not convinced we've got yea votes from them yet). Republican or Democrat, each of these guys only gets one vote and this time yesterday Conrad and Nelson would have been clear NO votes. No longer. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ery-helpful-failure-not-an-option.php?ref=fpb Conrad: President's Speech "Very Helpful", Failure Not An Option Brian Beutler | September 10, 2009, 10:00AM Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)--Budget chairman, and member of the gang of Six--is a noted public option skeptic, and has always been on hand to pour cold water on House health care reform proposals, which, he says, fail to lower the growth in the cost of health care. But even he was impressed with last night's speech. "I think the speech was very helpful because the President was very clear, he wants to reach across the party divide, to work together, to achieve a result that's critically important for the country," Conrad said. "You know really, here, failure is not an option." Needless to say, winning the approval of both Ben Nelson AND Kent Conrad is no small feat.
Bam bringing down the hammer! ABC News is reporting that President Obama has summoned 17 members of the Senate Democratic caucus--most of whom have expressed some degree of skepticism over President Obama's health care plan--to the White House for a meeting late this afternoon. The members are: Sens. Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Udall (D-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
Don't have time to look up anything now (at work), but will try to do so when I get home. I will say this...my wife is a physician at Methodist and most of her friends are docs as well, and all of them complain about how Medicare only pays a fraction of what they are charged for services and that Medicare does not even cover fixed expenses, and that is before even factoring in staff (Dr's, nurses, PA's, admins, etc...) salaries. This is everyone from family practitioners, pathologists, ER doc's, etc... All say the same thing. And all of them, and many of them are liberal, are against this particular health care proposal. I'll try to dig up some data for you (though google is pretty easy if you have the time, which I don't) when I get home this evening, but I am working late and plan on watching NFL football when I get home. As I stated in my original filibuster, I agree something needs to be done...I just don't think this is it. And I particularly hate this whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality that many Democrats have on this subject...reminds me a bit too much of the Republicans about the "War on Terror". It's possible to disagree with a particular proposal or perceived "solution" and still agree with the idea behind it
This is a really interesting list. Why these senators specifically and not, say, Kent Conrad? Or Max Baucus? And why no moderate Republicans? At first glance, he seems to be going after fruit on the lowest hanging branches here. And then you get to the end of the list and find Lieberman, who (based on recent statements) doesn't seem any more gettable than the excluded Dems. Maybe there's been some communication between the Lieberman/Obama camps since last night. Or maybe Obama is trying to charm him by continuing to reach out. I would think he'd be vulnerable to such a thing, man without a country that he is. Regardless, this is a very interesting list. If Obama can walk out of this meeting with those 17 agreeing to making this work no matter what (a la Conrad: "Failure is not an option."), he will have accomplished a large thing. From there, he gets the Conrads and Baucuses. From there, the Republicans have to recognize this IS going to happen and decide whether they really want to vote against meaningful health care reform which will almost certainly be popular down the road.
What do you believe the solution should be? Or what do the doctors you know believe that solution should be? You seem to have a problem with the rates Medicare pays... and also the cost of the program. So you seem to want them to pay more, but cost less.
It is good to have some history before getting all concerned about bi-partisanship with the GOP on health care for all. ****************** Dingell Comments on Republican Claims to Protect Seniors Washington, DC - Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI15) made the following remarks after claims from several Republicans, including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, began promoting what they called a “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights.” Many of these same Republicans opposed the “Patients’ Bill of Rights” which Congressman Dingell got passed in the Republican-controlled House in 1999. “I’m proud to say that I was one of the authors of Medicare more than 43 years ago. In my office sits the gavel that I held as Speaker pro tempore during that historic vote cast on the House floor. I also still have a pen that President Johnson used when signing that bill into law. I watched from the Speaker’s chair as Republicans fought furiously to kill Medicare before Johnson’s pen ever touched the paper. Bob Dole used to brag that only 13 Republican Congressman voted for the bill. The Republicans who’ve come to the House after that have been fighting to turn back the clock. Newt Gingrich led a 1995 effort that would have cut 14% from Medicare spending over seven years and forced millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. Gingrich is just one of the conservative cabal including Reagan, Dole, both Bushes and other Republicans that have worked constantly to kill or dismantle Medicare. Now, they are trying to scare seniors in the hope that it will kill the health insurance reform bill. “Here are the facts: HR 3200 will actually extend Medicare’s solvency by five years. Over time, H.R. 3200 will fill that horrendous Medicare prescription drug donut hole left behind by the Bush Administration. It will also bring immediate relief to seniors by cutting the costs of many drugs in the donut hole in half. It will make premiums more affordable for seniors. It will give patients more time with primary care doctors they trust and count on for medical advice. It will prevent physician reimbursement rates from being cut 21.5 percent next year and reform the sustainable growth rate, the physician payment mechanism in Medicare. “Republicans want seniors to forget 40 years of their efforts to demolish Medicare. They are interested in driving seniors off of Medicare and into other plans that don’t provide the same quality service. They had the chance to vote for the Patients’ Bill of Rights, a bipartisan bill that would have provided meaningful reform of managed care with significant protections for consumers. But it was Republicans that killed that bill. Don’t be fooled – the faces may have changed, but the Republican ideas of today are the same as those pushed by Republicans who wanted to kill Medicare before it started. I want to save Medicare and make sure the quality care seniors enjoy today is available to their children and their grandchildren. That’s why I’m proud to be the author of H.R. 3200, a bill that will continue Democratic traditions of ensuring seniors get the best medical care our nation has to offer.” http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/mi15_dingell/090825seniors.shtml
Kuchinic is not a big supporter of Obama's bill. http://rjones2818.blogspot.com/2009/09/kucinich-responds-to-obamas-address-to.html
crap...i REALLY don't have time for this right now, but hate it when people won't back up their points at all and appreciate you staying civil while describing your feelings on the program, so I'll have to be brief. There are SO many problems with the health care system, from drug companies to illegal immigrants flooding ER's (along with other indigant peoples) to malpractice lawsuits to insurance carriers being for-profit companies to goverment subsidized insurance underpaying hospitals...it's a total mess. I think a proper housecleaning should be in order...from the drug firms all the way to the plaintiff attorneys (who unfortunately are two of the biggest lobbyist groups in existence) to the insurance carriers (who are huge lobbyists as well). Off the top of my head, not sure what to do. Perhaps offer free medical school to students on the basis of having them work for 3 years at clinics set up for uninsured people so that they receive health care, much like the Army does for people. Don't know. It's a vicous cycle...drug companies, lawsuits driving up medical malpractice insurance, and people going to the ER for a cold drives up health care costs. And the people that have to pay more are the insured...because due to all the problems the hospitals and docs have to charge more to the insurance companies so that they make up for the lost money giving away free healthcare and being underpaid by medicare and medicaid. But the insurance carriers just pass the cost down to us...and we end up footing the bill and costs continue to rise every year. However, people need medical treatment... Another issue is the fact that as a country we feel like medical care is a right, not a priveledge. And we think the hospitals and insurance companies should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive 1 or 2 years longer (or months longer). I think everyone should get to see a doctor if they are sick...but if you are terminal we still have no problem doing everything medically possible to have people live those extra few months, even though doing so ends up costing 6 or 7 figures. Also, America is full of fat and unhealthy people who just don't take care of themselves. instead of "diet and exercise", they just take pills for their blood pressure, cholestorhol, obesity , diabetes instead of doing what most other countries do and just try to stay in shape. Hell, smokers and lung cancer are costing the industry millions...as are obese people and their heart problems. There are so many problems and the current system is collapsing on itself. We need to punish the tobacco makers, somehow actually have people try to stay semi-healthy, cap malpractice lawsuits, stop giving the drug companies carte blance, etc... really, major, I'm not sure what a concrete solution to all this is. However, I am not a congressman...and regardless I don't think congressman have any care at all other than what their lobbyists want....which is another problem altogether. My fear is that this plan has the federal government, who has a history of underbudgeting for major programs and loves to play the "best case scenario card" which hardly ever is true, running a major portion of our health care system. I don't think it will be nearly as cheap as they believe it will be and I don't think they are prepared to actually get this done efficiently. I shudder to think about this ending up costing our country trillions when we are already so indebted to EVERYONE. I mean, America is now like a college student with $50,000 of credit card debt and a job that pays $10/hour. And that's BEFORE we tackle health care. I know what Obama is promising (and his speach was well done) and I agree with his principle behind this, but I just think that a 1000 page bill, with who knows how many write-ons (see the WSJ today for benefits to the unions), is the solution. I think that many companies will realize that it is cheaper to pay the fines than it is to insure employees and the system will be flooded. What happens then? Who pays for it? Because this isn't gonna be profitable...and it isn't supposed to be...but someone has to pay for it. Medicare is a great example...do they blow money on excessive C-suite salalries and lobbyists? No, but they are running out of money and they don't pay what they should pay to the people who are here to cure the sick. Look at the post office, look at any municipal or state agency or federal for that matter...a bunch of indifferent employees who have a job for life and could care less what happens to the taxpayer dollars...having these same people running our national healthcare insurance company makes me shudder. And the potential spiraling costs really makes me shudder... So, I don't know. I just don't feel comfortable with this option. It feels rushed and I hate that it is 1000 pages that few supporters or opponents have even bothered to read. As far as other solutions proposed by other docs, not really sure...but will ask all of them when I see them and report back. And sorry for all the typo's but I just whipped through this and have to get back to work. Not even sure if I really answered your questions...that was kind of random, unorganized stream of consciousness typing...
I agree with Kucinich across the board here, but this is a good case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Obama's plan will cover millions of people who aren't covered and will save countless Americans from bankruptcy. The bottom line is that, while it's not single payer and it's nowhere near what Europe has (and we should have that), it will save thousands and thousands of lives. If he can't vote for that, he's an *******.
