Democrats begin discussing smaller health bill

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by Denny Crane, Jan 21, 2010.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 2 of 2
  1. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    There are 3 ways to do health care: private, single payer, and socialized. A combination is possible.

    Private is where you pay the doctors and hospitals yourself, or get insurance.

    Single payer is where the doctors and hospitals are private, but they bill the government for any service performed.

    Socialized is where the government builds and owns the hospitals and pays the medical staff as govt. employees.

    The democrats proposed to make their health care bill work over 10 years. In my view, over 10 years and $20B/year, we could build a lot of hospitals and clinics. Mostly clinics. $20B a year is chump change in a $3T budget (and they should cut back to that level, IMO).

    With education grants the govt. already gives out, they should pay for doctors' education if they'll work for the government hospitals or clinics for 5 years.

    People who go to these clinics and hospitals pay for services they receive. They can buy plans for $250 a year and up that entitle them to a certain minimum level of services. $250 might pay for flu shots twice a year, a couple of doctor (clinic) visits, and a set of lab tests. $1500/year buys you heart surgery or brain surgery (expensive procedures). If people show up for heart surgery and didn't pay the fees beforehand, they or family members get their paychecks docked until their fair share is paid in.

    I'm describing something of a govt. run HMO, or like the VA but for everyone. There's no insurance involved, though private insurance might pay for your expenses at a govt. facility.

    The problem with the current line of thinking (the bill in congress) is that it's about insurance. Insurance isn't health care, clinics and hospitals is health care. By far, most people pay $300 or $500 per month and receive less than $500 per year in actual services. The $500/year is how to save money.

    You subsidize the poor and the expensive services by charging $50 for a clinic visit that has a cost of $30, and pooling the extra $20 to pay for the heart surgeries and indigents.

    It's extremely important, in my view, that there still be a private sector industry. If you want to buy blue cross, it is your right. If the govt. (and they will) decides you're 85 years old and not deserving of a heart transplant, you should be able to mortgage your house and get one on your own.

    And then there's the constitutional issue. We all have a right to life, liberty, and property that the govt. cannot take without due process. A decision that you're 85, etc., violates your right to life and there's no due process (jury of your peers) involved. So the private sector option has to be there.

    Make sense?
     
    Denny Crane, Jan 21, 2010
    #21
  2. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    So you must be PISSED about everyone around you having to buy auto insurance in case they hit your car, huh?

    The same place our music and soda is test marketed?

    perhaps...
    there are more than 3 things I like about the bill, but I'm too lazy to think that hard. (yes that is my weakness and a negative trait)
     
    Eastoff, Jan 21, 2010
    #22
  3. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    I MAKE SO MUCH MONEY OMG!! HAHAHA!:pimp:
     
    Eastoff, Jan 21, 2010
    #23
  4. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Again...

     
    blazerboy30, Jan 21, 2010
    #24
  5. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    Joe Lieberman said he would support a medicare age lower to 55 in his state paper. then when it was an option he said he wouldn't vote for it. funny how that works huh?
     
    Eastoff, Jan 21, 2010
    #25
  6. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Anybody paying more than the average amount total tax burden can make that claim. So, assuming a relatively normal distribution, about half the people in the country can make that claim. I don't think that is bragging.
     
    blazerboy30, Jan 21, 2010
    #26
  7. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    because people risking your life because they are too lazy to spend that extra money on a vaccine is nothing like people being too lazy to spend that extra money on fixing your car?
     
    Eastoff, Jan 21, 2010
    #27
  8. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    "I make more money than half the population" that isn't bragging?
     
    Eastoff, Jan 21, 2010
    #28
  9. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. It means I might make slightly above average.
     
    blazerboy30, Jan 21, 2010
    #29
  10. The_Lillard_King

    The_Lillard_King Westside

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,405
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The problem Obama is facing is there is no answer to the health care problem that a majority of voters will favor.

    The baby boom generation is hitting their golden years and many have lost a significant portion of their retirement or did not save properly. The reality of older people not being able to afford medical care and prescription medication is here and will get worse each year for the next ten years. This is a serious problem with no easy answer and no answer taht will make a majority happy.


    Have fun with that Obama . . . I feel for him.
     
    The_Lillard_King, Jan 21, 2010
    #30
  11. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think there are things that the majority of people would support. Whether or not they can provide a complete healthcare reform that the majority would support, I don't know.

    Start with tort reform. We could provide a lot of people health insurance with that small change alone.
     
    blazerboy30, Jan 21, 2010
    #31
  12. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Maybe because it was included in a bill with $trillions in other spending?

    Hence smaller bills so 8 of 10 of them might pass instead of all or nothing.
     
    Denny Crane, Jan 21, 2010
    #32
  13. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Not to quibble, but you mean you make slightly above the median.
     
    Denny Crane, Jan 21, 2010
    #33
  14. The_Lillard_King

    The_Lillard_King Westside

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,405
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Tort reform is not the solution to health care and should not be the starting point to a health care package.
     
    The_Lillard_King, Jan 21, 2010
    #34
  15. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    nah man, he said he makes more than average :devilwink:
     
    Eastoff, Jan 21, 2010
    #35
  16. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    agreed. Doctors are going to start doing a shitty job if tort reform is the only thing that changes.
     
    Eastoff, Jan 21, 2010
    #36
  17. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I said earlier that I'll assume we have a close to "normal" distribution.

    So, yes. I meant the median and the average, same thing. :cheers:
     
    blazerboy30, Jan 21, 2010
    #37
  18. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I shouldn't have said "start with". I also never said it is "the" solution.

    But we can come up with better ways to improve the healthcare solution than taxing and spending ANOTHER $1T.
     
    blazerboy30, Jan 21, 2010
    #38
  19. maxiep

    maxiep RIP Dr. Jack

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,303
    Likes Received:
    5,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Merchant Banker
    Location:
    Denver, CO & Lake Oswego, OR
    That wasn't to get Republican votes; that was to get Democratic votes in the Senate. Besides, the "public option" would still happen under the Senate bill, just delayed a few years until they collapsed the private health insurance industry, which is clearly the end game in the Senate bill.

    If there is going to be a bill to transform 1/6th of the US Economy, I'd like to see a bill that 75%-80% of House and Senate members can vote for. That means taking on tort reform, allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, to allow people to buy the insurance they want rather than what state boards tell them they have to have, allow health savings accounts, treat individuals buying insurance the same as companies with the same tax deductions, etc.

    Perhaps the Brown election will force the Democrats to deal honestly. So far, it's been nothing but a power grab. This current bill doesn't give health insurance to everyone, doesn't bend the cost curve and doesn't allow you to keep the coverage you have. So, why do it?
     
    maxiep, Jan 21, 2010
    #39
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page