dude your missing the point again. universal health care has worked all over the world as demonstrated by its cheaper and greater efficiency. if mass. fails, it doesnt necessarily mean the rest of the country would. as pointed out in the analysis of the situation- mass's central problem is the recession induced hit on the program. plus, these doctors associations (e..g ama) and insurance companies are obviously working to railroad the entire thing. here in canada, the same shit happened to tommy maddox ,the architect of universal health care in canada, but we moved beyond it. as for the best and brightest going to wall street, they already do. however, beyond intelligence- doctors have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients (i.e. patients) that involves empathy as well as compassion. those traits arent rooted in levels in compensation, its rooted in service for mankind. in contrast, the wall street types cant even assume responsible stewardship over your mom's retirement plan.
you're missing the point. $.64 health care is Kia, $1.00 health care is Cadillac. Something is going to suffer, as it is in Mass., as it does in Canada and everywhere else. Long lines, long waits, or VA quality (which is $2500/veteran) that is not as good as anywhere else in the states.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003168293 CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs By David Clarke and Edward Epstein, CQ Staff The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday. That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, who has not yet released a bill, said his panel is acutely aware of the long-term cost concern. “Clearly our committee will do what it can,” he said. “We are very seriously concerned about that issue. We very much want to come up with a bill that bends the cost curve.” But Baucus suggested the White House is making the task difficult with opposition to one cost-cutting approach Elmendorf cited — limiting or even ending the tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. The Democrats and President Obama have cited two goals in their overhaul proposals — expanding coverage to the estimated 47 million Americans who currently lack it and bringing down long-term costs because the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending threatens to swamp the federal budget in coming years. Under questioning from Chairman Kent Conrad , D-N.D., Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that the congressional proposals released so far do not meet that second test. “In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs,” he said. Elmendorf was not addressing the narrow question of whether the Democrats’ legislation would be budget-neutral over 10 years. Congressional Democrats and the White House have promised to offset the cost of health care legislation over that period. But budget analysts and some members fear the legislation will not slow the growth of health care spending enough to prevent it from overwhelming the federal budget after that 10-year window. Earlier this week, House leaders introduced their overhaul plan, which is being considered by three committees this week. Elmendorf said that CBO has not completed its evaluation of the House plan, but what it has seen so far does not represent “the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.” Senate Bills The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved its draft bill Wednesday, and Christopher J. Dodd , D-Conn., the acting chairman of that panel, said his panel had reduced the initial price tag of its bill as estimated by the CBO. “I’m very confident we can meet the president’s goal of having a fully paid-for 10 year program on health care right around $1 trillion,” he said. Senate Finance, not the HELP Committee, has jurisdiction over the tax code and Medicare — the areas Elmendorft targeted for savings. Dodd complained that CBO refuses to assume that government savings will occur from an increased focus on wellness and preventive health care. “The only thing CBO does is tell you how much taxpayer money has to be invested to achieve those results,” Dodd said. “We believe we have crafted legislation that does bend that curve, bring health care costs down and make it affordable for all Americans,” he said. “I appreciate their work, but frankly we’re on the right track, we have a solid bill and one that’s affordable.” The Senate Finance Committee has yet to release its overhaul proposal, and Elmendorf said he did not want to publicly discuss the conversations he has had with members of that committee, including Conrad. When asked what could be done to help “bend the curve” of health care costs over time, Elmendorf pointed out that most health experts believe the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance is an area that could help reduce costs. Many experts say the exclusion encourages high health care spending since it shields workers from the cost of their coverage. Baucus took aim at Obama on that point. “Basically, the president is not helping us. He does not want the exclusion” to be capped or eliminated, he said. None of the congressional plans released so far address the tax exclusion, and it is not clear whether Finance will tackle the issue. Many experts also have told CBO that altering the Medicare payment system so that it emphasizes cost effectiveness, rather than fees for services as the current system does, would also help, Elmendorf said. “Delivery system reforms,” Baucus said, would be “a game changer in this bill.” However, he told reporters two days ago that the payment reforms in his bill and in the House bill are more similar than they are different. And those would not significantly alter the current system. Surtax vs. Cost Savings Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that if more cost savings can be produced in the legislation now being assembled in the House, a proposed $544 billion tax surcharge on the wealthiest Americans could be scaled back. As three House committees began marking up the health care overhaul bill (HR 3200), Pelosi told reporters that she thinks the legislation can eventually wring more costs from the health system. “I believe all the costs of the health care reform bill can come out of squeezing costs out of the health care system,” she said. But then she added that even if that were true, the revenue from the proposed surtax would be needed to help with startup costs associated with making changes to the health system and for reducing the big federal budget deficit. “We have to have a revenue stream to pay for it,” she said of the bill. “If we don’t need it, we can use it to reduce the deficit,” Pelosi said. Under questioning, she said that some of those high-income taxpayers who would face the proposed surcharge might get a break. “If we can get more savings, perhaps we can cut it at the high end,” Pelosi said. Under the surtax plan spelled out by the Ways and Means Committee, the bottom two surtax rates would disappear if health care savings to the government exceed $175 billion by 2013. But those rates would double if the government fails to save at least $150 billion. Pelosi said she wants to encourage House members to propose more structural changes that could wring costs out of the system. “More structural changes? Absolutely. They are already significant, “she said, referring to the proposed legislation unveiled Tuesday. “Can there be more? Absolutely,” she added. Pelosi said she remains confident that the legislation can be changed enough to bring on board many of the Blue Dog Democrats who have threatened to walk away from a bill that they see as too expensive. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman , D-Calif., plans to meet with Blue Dogs to see how their concerns can be addressed. “What we’re saying is, let the process unfold in the public process,” Pelosi said. She said members are getting a chance to speak up in the committee markups, then in the Rules Committee and finally on the floor. She said the bill will be on the House floor in the last week of July, which would fulfill her pledge to have the House vote on the bill before it leaves for its long August recess. Alex Wayne, Jane Norman and John Reichard contributed to this story.
no one else qualifies your analysis. ill just redirect u to the WHO's ranking who seem to think your much more kia than caddy.
We already went through this. WHO is counting people who get shot to death as if it has some bearing on the quality of the care and providers. But they do rate our system #1 in responsiveness. Whatever that means to you. If the 15+% of GDP on HC costs is bad for you, the Democrats are proposing to up that to 25+%. And the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has weighed in that all of the big social programs crowd out govt's ability to do all things basic and worthy of being a govt. exercise. Adding a huge expense in a down economy when we're already going warp 9 to the sun in terms of spending our way into oblivion just isn't smart. Especially when the system is tops in the world and our quality of life is as good as can get, even for our "poor."
every time i see your assumption laced arguments (i.e black ppl are skewing our numbers and white ppl are the healthiest ppl in the world)- i think of rudy gulani's infamous assertions on the campaign trail that he would have died of his cancer if he lived in canada. a few points i want to reiterate here 1) accessibility- nearly 50 million are uninsured and millions of insured are deemed to have a "preexisting condition" when they want to undergo a life saving procedure 2) cost- the burdensome cost of a system that doesnt even account for most americans is probably cause to undertake a facelift 3) the heavy costs (exorbitant premiums) imposed on business and the depressing influence on wages for the insured 4) morally bankrupt- allowing ppl to go without is blasphemous for a "christian nation"
I'm not saying it's black peoples' fault. It might help if the local Democrats didn't direct funds from their schools to other districts where their campaign donors live, district the black neighborhoods for toxic waste dumps, force segregation by building projects that turn into ghettos, regulate in ways that makes minority business formation difficult, institute welfare programs that don't allow people on those programs to build up any capital/savings or even save up to buy a car, etc. Doctors do a lot of pro bono work, and when they don't, they give people payment plans to pay their bills. People without insurance are not denied health care. If portability is a problem, then they can outlaw insurance companies from refusing people for preexisting conditions. It'd save us $trillions. I guess in Canada, "most" means something less than 1/6th. Businesses in most places are not required to provide insurance. They do it as a benefit (there's other benefits, like retirement plans) for their workers. Mandating these heavy costs be imposed on business is going to reduce the number of jobs and make it difficult for small businesses to get started or succeed. Not a brilliant thing to do. You're confusing going without insurance vs. going without health care. Pro bono work done by doctors is a christian thing to do, I presume.
african americans most be the dumbest ppl in the world if all what u said was true because they overwhelming vote democrat. fyi- many repubicans didnt even have the decency to vote for the mlk holiday. and lest we forget that the civil rights legislation was passed by LBJ (a democrat) and that goes for almost anything meaningful to african americans. 1) if u got shot in america and u were uninsured, u would be admitted to the hospital and treated. if i were to juxtapose that same scenario to sri lanka (a war torn, third world nation bogged down by hyperinflation and every other economic shock) u would also be treated even if u didnt have penny to your name like in that american scenario. although, in america u would walk out indebted probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, while in sri lanka u would walk out in the same socio-economic position u came in. to reiterate- the greatest trigger of personal bankruptcy in america is exorbitant health care bills. 2) i should have used "many" but the nearly 50 million without coverage and the many who are deemed to have a preexisting condition when life saving surgery is required are the ones i was referring to. 3) if u were graduating from college with degree in actuarial science (its in demand profession) and u had a choice between a company that offered health care coverage and one which didnt, i would suspect u would choose the one that had. companies compete for talent and providing coverage as become a necessary cost. plus, i heard companies can now opt for the potentially cheaper govt option if passed so that again is a huge savings in these uncertain times. 4) i think your confusing going without coverage and just not being able to afford it or deemed not worthy by the insurance company. i highly doubt a single mother wouldnt purchase coverage if she could afford it. btw, should these good samaritan doctors = socialists be eradicated because they are undermining the integrity of your world renowned system? doctors need incentives to practice right? fyi- obama has changed his campaign position on forcing ppl to purchase the govt plan.
LOL, you need to study up on your history. The Republican Party here was the one that freed the slaves and then occupied the south with military troops to enforce civil rights. The KKK was started by Democrats in the South and they lynched black people and murdered Republicans who were there to help the newly freed slaves get educated and so on. This was certainly true from the 1850s through 1960, when the major black civil rights leaders supported Nixon against JFK in the election. Certainly true in 1968, when racist George Wallace ran as a democrat and lost the primaries, then ran as an independent and won a whole lot of Democrats' states. That civil rights legislation that LBJ got passed was done with votes from nearly every republican and fewer of the democrats (who controlled congress). Maybe you're too young to remember Eisenhouer mobilizing the national guard to push the governor of Arkansas (Clinton's home town) away from blocking the High School doors, so the first black students could enter. Or maybe you don't remember JFK and RFK sitting on their hands while the Freedom Riders got the shit kicked out of them for letting black folks sit in the front of their buses as they went from town to town in the South. But whatever. You'd much more likely die in Sri Lanka. They've got KIA, we've got state of the art everything and the best trained doctors, nurses, and research people ANYWHERE. The ERs here do not turn people away, whether they can pay or not. Hell, you can't even get arthritis treatment for 9 months in Canada. You can here. The system is superior here to anywhere else. Actuaries make so much that the cost of insurance is in the noise. My father was a doctor, my mother a nurse. Both retired. I grew up listening to them gripe about how long it took to get paid by the government (medicare, medicaid), and how they needed a large staff of people just to do all the paperwork. Maybe that's where some of the costs come from.
so u think african americans are morons for voting against their interests? the truth is that parties change their character. many point to how barry goldwater transformed the very nature of the republican party and those dividends werent realized until reagan. look evangelicals used to vote overwhelmingly democrat, now they vote overwhelmingly republican. thats because the republicans ingeniously coopted the evangelicals with their moral conservatism on issues like abortion and gay bashing. lets examine recent history- the republicans have housed jesse helms and david duke, along with some notorious bigots into their party within the last decade. they have tried to stonewall affirmative action as vigrously as they trample on a women's right to choose. and now they are lynching the supreme court nominee for being a "wise latina".
David Dukke didn't even get 1% of the republican vote. Robert Byrd, D WVa, was a KKK grand dragon, he's been in the Senate for decades. He's been a really important guy for the Dems all along. And yes, I think blacks are nuts for voting for either party. I'm OK with Obama's appointee. You won't see me ragging on her. And the republicans put in the guys who made Roe (legal abortion) and upheld it (Sandra Day O'Connor was the wing vote for 20+ years, appointed by Reagan). The guy who wrote the Roe decision was a Nixon appointee. I support Affirmative Action to a degree. To me, the best form of it is having lots of black millionaires, successful leaders in the community, teachers, professors, lawyers, judges, congressmen, mayors, and even the president. If anything, I'm disappointed that Obama has appointed so many white people. I'm pro choice. Goldwater was, too. (I'm pro gay marriage and pro-smaller government, libertarian, as well) http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=4040 Caucasian - Jewish - Libertarian - Moderate - Pro- gun - Pro-Capital Punishment - Pro-Choice - Pro-Civil Unions - Pro-Gay Marriage - Pro-Smaller Government - Pro-Social Security Privatization - Married - U.S. Army - Freemason - NAACP - Christian - Episcopalian - Straight -
any unfortunately the religious nut jobs have hijacked your party (i.e. bush jr, palin, etc.). and u might be pro choice, pro affirmative action and that would make u the antithesis of the republican party mantra.
btw, the goldwater stream of the republican party is relatively non existent today. i remember reading that the hil train (mrs clinton) was a goldwater supporter in her youth and same with al gore. clearly those elements have been purged from the republican party.
This bit about party histories is too much of a digression and not all that interesting IMO. The real interesting question is the one you guys brought up earlier: what's the use in having the highest quality healthcare if using it will bankrupt you? I know you said that everyone has access to that health care Denny, but I feel having to make a decision between good health and financial security limits how accessible that care is. And I don't see how a kind of "tough break" answer to it is morally reconcilable.
I'm not a republican. I'm a registered independent, and I vote for Libertarian candidates. I'm not a socialist by any stretch. I am Liberal in every sense of the word. Liberal about social issues, and Liberal about economic ones. Economic Liberty you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom I'd be quite happy if the Republicans found themselves again and became the party of small government and individual liberty. I agree they've been hijacked, and I agree that it's tough to find actual Conservatives in the mold of Goldwater, Reagan, George Will, PJ O'Roarke, Bill Buckley Jr., etc. Winston Churchill was of the same mold, as a foreign leader. Instead, Republicans and Bush got together and spent enormous sums on social programs, including a massive prescription drug benefit for Medicare that has set us on the course for insolvency as a nation. The Democrats have gained power and are taking all that to new levels. Warp 9 straight for the sun instead of Warp 1. The solution to our health care issues is actual free markets and people controlling their own decisions. The reliance on govt. and insurance payments has removed the individual from the equation and allowed the special interests to profiteer. Sorry Chutney, but I don't buy the argument that the best (anything) should be watered down so it can be govt. run and "free" for everyone. It's morally wrong to do that.
