“Desperate”

“The best explanation I can find as to why POTUS persists against the large odds against the final bill is that there is no alternative, no other choice, no way out.”

thats one way to look at it, but i think the view by greg at american thinker probably hits a little closser to the mark:

“It has been said often, and with more eloquence than I, that Barack Obama’s priorities are misplaced.  Where are the jobs pundits are asking? But even as he lip-serves employment, he needles America. 

Vladimir Lenin once said, “Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism,” and it’s clear that Obama and Lenin share philosophy.  Clearer still is that Obama doesn’t care.  Not about November.  Not about your family.  Not about your job.  What he prioritizes — as evidenced by his push for “reform” — is the “fundamental restructuring” of the American economy.”

(http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/why_obama_wont_stop_pushing_he.html)

he did run on “change”, on the end of old politics.  im not a professional – i have no idea what makes this guy tick.  but i think we all understand human nature.  a person doesn’t just “fall on the sword” for any reason – and career politicians don’t commit political suicide unless its for something that surpases politics (like tons of money or powerful ideology).

does he truely believe in healthcare reform so deeply – either as simply reform or as a stepping stone to deeper & broader reform – that he will sacrifice all?  perhaps he’s simply repaying those that have made his life as exhuberant and worthwhile as it has become, so indebted that he really has no choice but to push ahead blindly.

…or maybe its just plain old arrogance?

Part I

John,

You try and try and try to bash a good healthcare bill, or at least the best one we will get at this time, with your right-wing talking points. I am not sure what your motives are? Maybe you think that not everyone in this country should have the right to healthcare? not sure why you would think this? You are paying for these uninsured people anyways, as much as $1,000 per year per person in a hidden cost added to your taxes.
why would you not support a bill that gets 30 million more people insured, cuts costs, eliminates pre-existing conditions, allows you to keep your children on your insurance longer, adds exchanges etc. etc.

why would you not support a bill which will cut costs? I suggest you read this article from today’s Wall Street Journal, which is not a particularly liberal bastion these days.

Health Reform Passes the Cost Test
The Obama plan will cut costs—$600 billion over the next decade. Why walk away from it?

“Many people are worried that the health-care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats will fail to bend the “cost curve.” A number of commentators are urging no votes because of this, and Republicans have asked the president to start health reform over, focusing squarely on the issue of cost reduction.

These calls overlook the actual legislation. Over the past year of debate, 10 broad ideas have been offered for bending the health-care cost curve. The Democrats’ proposed legislation incorporates virtually every one of them.

The 10 ideas, nine of which are in the bill, are: form insurance exchanges; reduce excessive prices, including those of supplemental plans enrolling Medicare beneficiaries; moving to value-based payment in Medicare; tax generous insurance plans; empower an independent Medicare advisory board; combat Medicare fraud and abuse; malpractice reform; invest in information technology; prevention; create a public option.

• Form insurance exchanges. These would help curb underwriting and inefficient marketing practices that raise costs in the small-group and individual insurance markets. This is addressed in all the House and Senate bills, and the president’s proposal. Grade: Full credit.

• Reduce excessive prices, including those of supplemental plans enrolling Medicare beneficiaries. The president’s proposal reduces these Medicare Advantage overpayments and others to different providers, even in the face of Republican claims that reducing such overpayments is tantamount to rationing care for seniors. Grade: Full credit.

Part II

• Moving to value-based payment in Medicare. Both Democrats and Republicans have called for moving from a system where volume drives reimbursement to one where value drives reimbursement. The president’s proposal includes virtually every idea offered for doing this. Grade: Full credit.

• Tax generous insurance plans. Health-insurance benefits are excluded from income taxation, providing incentives for excessively generous insurance. Many economists have proposed capping the tax exclusion to reduce these incentives. The president’s proposal taxes some of the most generous policies, though it has deferred the date by which these taxes take effect. Grade: Partial credit.

• Empower an independent Medicare advisory board. Interest-group politics intrudes too deeply within the mechanics of Medicare policy, raising program costs and hindering efforts to improve care. Despite powerful opposition, the president proposes this independent board and a process for fast-tracking such recommendations through Congress. Grade: Full credit.

• Combat Medicare fraud and abuse. The administration has started an active task force to combat these problems. Other ideas to reduce fraud and abuse were presented at the recent health-care summit, and were incorporated in the president’s proposal. Grade: Full credit.

• Malpractice reform. Defensive medicine is a small but important driver of medical spending. The reform proposal makes some headway, encouraging states to experiment with alternative mechanisms to reduce malpractice burdens. More could be done—for example, specialized malpractice courts and a safe harbor for physicians practicing evidence-based medicine—but the president’s proposal makes a start. Grade: Partial credit.

• Invest in information technology. Many studies suggest savings in the tens of billions of dollars from IT investment. The stimulus bill passed a year ago contains funds to wire the medical system over the next few years, and the administration is supplementing this with significant funds to analyze the comparative effectiveness of different treatments—even in the face of “death panel” claims. Grade: Full credit.

Part III

• Prevention. The president’s proposal includes significant public-health investments, provides new incentives for physicians to focus on preventive and chronic care, and opens Medicare to finding new ways of supporting prevention. The only area of weakness is the lack of a junk food tax or tax on sugar sweetened beverages. Grade: Partial credit.

• Create a public option. A public insurance option would provide competition for insurers in areas that are nearly a monopoly and provide a path for reforms in Medicare to expand readily in the under-65 population. The public option was eliminated because of Republican opposition, however. Grade: No credit.

So reform gets full credit on six of the 10 ideas, partial credit on three others, and no credit on one. The area of no credit (a public option) is because Republicans opposed the idea. One area receives only partial credit because of Democratic opposition (malpractice reform) and two other areas reflect general hesitancy to increase taxes (taxing Cadillac plans and taxing drivers of obesity).

Why is reform viewed so negatively? In part, it may reflect the perfect being the enemy of the good. If the only passing grade is 10 out of 10, then reform clearly fails. But given where the Republican Party is on a public option, no reform will get a passing grade. If both parties were willing to raise taxes and Republicans negotiated malpractice reform for their overall support, we could probably get a nine out of 10.

Reform is also viewed negatively because official scorekeepers do not believe anything on this list other than reducing prices will save much money. The Congressional Budget Office has consistently estimated that policies built around changing incentives and thus encouraging more efficient care will not have any effect on cost trends. My own calculations, mirrored by other observers and a host of business and provider groups, suggest that the reforms will save nearly $600 billion over the next decade and even more in the subsequent one.

Of course, no one knows precisely how much medical spending increases will moderate. But one cannot doubt the commitment to try. What is on the table is the most significant action on medical spending ever proposed in the United States. Should we really walk away from that? ”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703936804575108080266520738.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Guest, I agree we could save billions of dollars in medical cost if we just stop advances in medicine.  I am sure there are many studies that show how advances in medicine has improved longivity over the past 2 decades.  Illness and injuries that would have been fatal a decade ago are now treatable.  But, it cost..  I am truly tired of the “bad insurance companies” only making 3-5% profit on health insurance.  If you look at the premiums paid vs the claims paid you will see health insurance is not the profit center of insurance companies.  Life, Disability and other products are the profit center of carriers.
After years of selling group insurance (I’m on the P&C side now) I saw employees declining coverage when it amounted to only 2% of their take home pay.  Why buy it when you don’t need it.  But, when it was needed, we want coverage for everything without paying on penny out of pocket.  The latest I heard about health reform from The Speaker, was no co-pay for prevented care.  You will pay $200 for a tune up for your care, but not $10 for a tune up of your body.  We we speak of health care in Canada and other countries you will find they pay much higher taxes than we do for the service.  It will take years for the country to adapt to there kind of system.  . 
When I was growing up, my parents had insurance which was a standard $100 deductable with an 80/20 co-pay.  With 8 children, my mother would budget every month for medical care for us.  There was no dental coverage offered, but we all managed to have check-ups every year.  My parents chose to have only one TV and we only ate out once a month.  We must take responsibilities for our health.  I left the group side of the business telling my employer if I heard about one more drunk demanding a liver transpant or one more women over 45 demanding fertility treatment I would lose it. 

OBSP,

The health insurance company as the middle man provide absolutely no value. They have done a poor job at controlling healthcare costs in this country, don’t provide universal healthcare coverage, and don’t manage the risk very well. The simple fact of the matter is that healthcare should not be a for-profit business. It works in the public sector much much better in every other single industrialized country on the planet.

And lets assume you are right and the health insurance companies are not very profitible. Well then that just proves why we should get rid of the insurance companies. If they are not that profitible then to be profitable they will continue to drop customers, deny care and raise rates.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_truth_about_the_insurance.html

By the way the healthcare bills that are being proposed actually potentially give the health insurance companies another 30 million customers which will be subsidized by the U.S. govt. I am sure they will make money on those new subsidized customers, with many of them being young who are generally very healthy.

Canadians do not pay much higher taxes than in the U.S. I have seen a study that compares the taxes between Illinois and Ontario and the difference was almost negligible. Taxes have in fact been going down for the last 10 years in Canada.

In addition, you cannot just say taxes are higher in another country so that is why their public system is bad. You have to compare how much each country pays for healthcare. You may pay taxes to cover healthcare in other countries, but that works out to be a hell of lot cheaper than the price you pay in premiums for healthcare and the hidden taxes people pay for covering the uninsured in the U.S. One way or another you pay for it whether it is through a more efficient tax based system or a private system where you end up paying more. The reality is that everyone knows that the U.S. spend twice as much per capita as the next industrialized country and gets worse outcomes.

OBSP,  
 
Who is saying anything about stopping advancements in medicine? This healthcare bill keeps a completely private system. Nothing changes. Second, if you some how think more govt involvement will kill innovation, that is complete BS. How does medical innovation occur in all the other countries of the world? Do you know that many of the biggest innovators in healthcare are Philips and Siemens from the Netherlands and Germany. And do you know that most medical discovery comes from publicly funded universities around the world.

And your comments defending health insurance companies are also very suspect. The simple reality is that the health insurance company as the middle man provide absolutely no value. They have done a poor job at controlling healthcare costs in this country, don’t provide universal healthcare coverage, and don’t manage the risk very well. The simple fact of the matter is that healthcare should not be a for-profit business. It works in the public sector much much better in every other single industrialized country on the planet.  
 
And lets assume you are right and the health insurance companies are not very profitible. Well then that just proves why we should get rid of the insurance companies. If they are not that profitible then to be profitable they will continue to drop customers, deny care and raise rates.  
 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_truth_about_the_insurance.html  
 
By the way the healthcare bills that are being proposed actually potentially give the health insurance companies another 30 million customers which will be subsidized by the U.S. govt. I am sure they will make money on those new subsidized customers, with many of them being young who are generally very healthy.  
 
Canadians do not pay much higher taxes than in the U.S. I have seen a study that compares the taxes between Illinois and Ontario and the difference was almost negligible. Taxes have in fact been going down for the last 10 years in Canada.  
 
In addition, you cannot just say taxes are higher in another country so that is why their public system is bad. You have to compare how much each country pays for healthcare. You may pay taxes to cover healthcare in other countries, but that works out to be a hell of lot cheaper than the price you pay in premiums for healthcare and the hidden taxes people pay for covering the uninsured in the U.S. One way or another you pay for it whether it is through a more efficient tax based system or a private system where you end up paying more. The reality is that everyone knows that the U.S. spend twice as much per capita as the next industrialized country and gets worse outcomes.

“Guest” has learned to cut-&-paste talking points.  Ohboy.  So many pointy-thingys does not invite people to read. 

It’s point-LESS matter:  Has mass and takes up space.

Why don’t read my posts and add to the discussion? Disagree with me and add your points and arguements. You may learn something. Otherwise you are just wasting space youself.