Tom Blumer from BizzyBlog has updated his map of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare behemoth and what it creates. Namely 111 agencies, regulators, committees, boards and offices: (click on picture to enlarge)
Meanwhile Senator Gregg reacts to the new CBO estimate:
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.
Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.
“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.
“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”
And listen…this is what our government believes will be the cost. But look at programs our government has run historically and you find decades of added costs and overruns that our forced onto the taxpayer.
Insanity
See author page
Sarah has a great post on her facebook about this and the same chart. I just can’t believe that our country would want the Obama Care Plan.
CBO projected “savings” are never realized. Congressional cost estimates are always dramatically understated. The broken and corrupt process demands it be this way. Review projections for social security, medicare, senior prescription drugs, and any other government run program and show me even one that came in anywhere near the initial budget or projections. What makes any sane person think this health care fiasco will be any different? It is a fiction generated by those who seek power, money, and control and touted by the incompetent.
Pelosi’s “new” concept of bipartisan = Liberal Dems + “Moderate” Dems.
The purpose of this post is not to be contentious or argue in favor of any particular point of view. I’ve stated my own views on the Obamacare debate in some detail elsewhere; at present I’m not seeking to start this again (among other things, my personal time schedule wouldn’t permit me to get into the usual one against six debate which is the invariable outcome). So, once again, I’m not seeking a debate; I’m simply seeking a reaction to a very, very narrow question.
To wit:
The abortion issue.
Now, virtually all private insurance plans pay for abortion. You buy United Health Care or Aetna or Blue Cross or Humana and pay more in premiums than you get back in health care services and you are directly subsidizing abortions. That’s the reality. The fact is, you are voluntarily doing this: it isn’t some program imposed on you by government. Private insurance pays for most of the abortions which take place in this country. You choose to buy private health insurance (or you accept private health insurance from your employer) and you are directly subsidizing abortions, of your own free choice.
Now, what’s going on now, in the House, is interesting. No guarantee how this is going to turn out. No guarantee that the final bill won’t be changed in Senate/House reconciliation, etc. But, just for the sake of academic argument, let’s say that what seems to be going on now actually ends up being the way the final bill gets signed into law.
In order to get enough votes to pass, Pelosi may be forced to give in to demands from conservative Democrats (no, that’s not entirely an oxymoron) that the final bill puts in a total prohibition against the “public option” plan paying for any abortion services and for government-subsidized private plans paying for any abortion services.
Now, what this would do (stay with me on this) is to force lots of people who would otherwise be covered by private health insurance which pays for abortions into a public plan (or publicly subsidized private plan) which did NOT pay for abortions. Hence, the total number of abortions actually performed would certainly go down (not close to zero and maybe only by 10% or so or whatever, but they would still go down).
In fact, for someone who didn’t want to subsidize abortions with his (or his employer’s, which is the same thing) own money, the only option might be the “public option.”
Wouldn’t that be just a tad bit ironic?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, that was actually I point I had considered and was digging around on – “Does my current insurance company pay for abortions?”
I can’t quite well say “I don’t want this in the public option” if my current insurance company does in good conscience.
HOWEVER, there is a group of people out there who think that “Planned Parenthood” is nothing more than a hidden genocidal movement. And lets face it, it doesn’t look good when you look at Margaret Sanger and the history there.
Now, comes the question – if abortion IS included, how many abortions will be at the hands of “Planned Parenthood” – the people that believe this is a genocide movement will now have the idea that this is government endorsed genocide.
All I will say is – good luck with that when addressing these people and their concerns.
(There is a side issue with Abortion and the legal system I have but that will wait for another thread).
On a related note to the whole mess:
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
Also – look at the JCT letter linked from that article:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf
The number of taxpayers in 2007 was 138 million. So it averages out of a tax increase of about $1,232 per taxpayer per year. But it doesn’t stop there. The government expects an 8% compounded increase in the total cost yearly after that.
The Democrats claim the health bill will help 96% of the American people. That leaves 12 million people. Out of the 47 million people not insured, 10 million people are illegal aliens which are said won’t be helped and 17 million are in households making $50,000 or more so they probably will not get aid. So that leaves 8 million people that will get help from this bill. That’s $37,500 per person per year using that $3 trillion cost.
But of course there is even more! Pelosi’s bill has a stick when it comes to states inacting tort reform. If a state inacts tort reform, the federal government will deny federal health aid to the state. So a person in the state getting Medicare will be getting no care and those getting Medicaid will be getting care from money provided by the state side. Tort reform would save $58 billion a year according to Sen. Reid and between $100-$200 billion a year in unnecessary medical tests according to Reuters.
@Temujin says: “Review projections for social security, medicare, senior prescription drugs, and any other government run program and show me even one that came in anywhere near the initial budget or projections.”
Right you are!
Here’s the problem: The cost of privately-run health programs rose even more than the cost of government-run health programs. One way or another, we are going to have to pay the costs of health care. The implication of Mike’s post in #6 is that the reason expenses exceeded budget was because of government inefficiency, waste, fraud, etc. There may have been a bit of that; but there’s inefficiency, waste, fraud, etc. in privately-administered health care plans, as well. The reason costs have sykrocketed beyond budget is because the cost of health care has skyrocketed.
Health insurance premiums for small businesses are going up 15% in this year alone, after more than doubling during President Bush’s tenure. Even as benefits are going down and out of pocket costs are going up.
Look at the economy and business environment, right now. You think that the 15% increase wouldn’t be just as much of a job killer as any tax increase? And the increased out of pocket costs won’t be a burden on consumer spending and saving? But tax increases to pay for Medicare (even to make Medicare solvent) would have been less, over the years, than the increases in private insurance premiums plus increases in out of pocket costs would have been.
I think that there are many creative ways to attack the Pelosi health care bill and Obamacare in general. I compliment the FA contributors for their scholarship and diligence in finding flaws in the general Democratic health care initiative. But arguing this on the basis of total cost is the weakest argument which you can make against this bill. It won’t increase total costs (insurance premiums + taxes + out of pocket costs) beyond what they are going to be in the absence of health care reform.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Too many Agencies, Boards and too stupidly bureaucratic / expensive for the Majority of Americans. It is a BS Ratmaze. Period.
It will be a Monster, produce a wild deficit spike and destroy Health Care availability as well as Private Insurance that survives on a 3% margin. My TRICARE Premiums are going to be increased again and that will affect Retired and Active Duty Military Families that don’t make six figures a year by any stretch.
It is time to stop the BS on this. Period. Reduced Quality of Care, is coming if this is signed into Law. Do the math. Congress has not, neither has the Senate or the Socialists in the White House. They will just print more money, raise taxes and control roughly 1/6th MORE of the Economy. This is Crap and Americans will suffer from this travesty for a generation or so. It takes that long to make useless CRAP like this go away.
Anyone that supports this needs to get off the pipe. This is exactly what happens when Idiots are sent to DC and Fools vote for Bills that they have not read or understand.
If this bill passes, it will be a very sad day for me. I came to America with no money, lots of dreams and worked my a$$ off to be able to enjoy a better life and a better future for my children. What happened to that America? It is fading and I cannot explain the apathy of most Americans to engage themselves in the political process. We have became complacent with our lifes. Our conservatives values have been attacked by a bunch of nitwigs who love to hate America from the morning til the evening because Marx says so. A bunch of good for nothing elected officials are voting right now to take my freedom away. Where are those nice decent Americans that knew what was right and were willing to fight for freedom?.
URI, a lot of US are still here, Pardner, and aim to vote the Marxists Out at the earliest opportunity.
They just passed the votes. One republican voting for them!
God Help Us!
220-215. Narrow margin. On to the traitors in the Senate next, then Reconciliation.
openid.aol.com/runnswim look again. Reuter claims that Medicare fraud is $200 billion a year. Medicare’s budget for 2009 was $408 billion. So 49% of Medicare payments are to pay for fraud. Pelonsi’s plan calls for the cost to be $37,500 a year for each of the 8 million that it’s going to help. I really doubt any private insurance payment is that high in the U.S. Not only is your healthcare bill going to naturally go up, you will have to pay about $1,000 a year in new taxes to pay for Pelonsi’s new plan.
The Republican plan would cut costs, but the Democrats don’t want to do that.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by FloppingAces, mike mckenna. mike mckenna said: Pages, Costs, and Agencies Added To The Obama/Pelosi Health Care Behemoth: http://bit.ly/1GGdrF via @addthis […]
@ openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry)
Depends on how you structure the policy Larry. I know Blue Cross works with Catholic organizations to provide health insurance plans the do not offer abortion. I don’t know about the rest.
Worry not though, the vote was just to provide cover. If a bill ever makes its way into conference, the abortion issue will be put back in. But it’s not just the abortion part, it’s the FOCA provisions they have written in. Catholic Hospitals have already said they will close their doors before they are forced to perform abortions. Don’t say FOCA isn’t written in there either. The Conference of Catholic Bishops are 100% behind the healthcare bill, as long as FOCA isn’t in there.
We won’t really know unless or until the final bill is brought forth and the Concsience Protection provisions are in there or removed.
For all we disagree on, I’m curious to know how my sentiments regarding health care align with conservative contributors and readers of this blog.
Disclaimer: I am a layperson on all fronts with respect to health-care, so I won’t be too surprised if my ideas are ultimately shredded, but that’s at least one better than keeping them from ever seeing the light of day.
First, I’ll make some enemies on the right: I feel that our government should offer a welfare-like health care plan which fully funds/reimburses all palliative care (ease of suffering).
I have no qualms about being taxed out-right for the ease-of-suffering care for other members of society. I do not think anybody, anywhere, should be in a position to not ease the suffering of a fellow human – that, in my mind, should constitute criminal behavior.
Now, for some enemies on the left: The government should play no role whatsoever in decisions or funding pertaining to curative treatments.
All curative treatments should be funded out-of-pocket or by private insurance (at the discretion of the patient / patient’s family) and, for patients and families unable to afford that financial load, then from appeals to charitable organizations (or, equivalently, to the hospitals or clinics to act in a charitable manner) for financial assistance.
Speaking for myself, I have no problem allocating enough of my income to pay for the minor medical issues encountered by myself and my family; nor with paying for private insurance to use should I or my family encounter major medical expenses.
Furthermore, I’d happily contribute a significant portion of my income to a charitable organization which gave explicit and clear guidelines to how and under what circumstances those funds would be disbursed to people in need. Transparency and accountability would be key here: I’d demand the right to review an online database of all cases submitted for funding (stripped of personal identifying information), to see the amount of charitable funding (if any) ultimately contributed or lent for each case, and to see a statement detailing the rationale behind the funding decisions for each case. Accountability might come in the ability to vote off board members who regularly made funding decisions I find un-palatable.
From my naive layperson perspective, it seems a system such as this aligns the right’s desire for personal freedom with the left’s desire to treat all members of society with the human compassion empathy according to the values encompassed by the community as a whole.
Shall the shredding now commence?
@Kevin: The shredding begins.
Kevin, you say:
I don’t know too many people, IF ANY, on the right who want to see the poor die in a ditch because they couldn’t get health care. There were many Republican votes for Medicaid and Medicare which directly addressed that problem. We had a bipartisan consensus that we can and should look after those who could not provide for themselves.
But this isn’t what the current Dem plan is about. It’s about forcing you and I to buy insurance, and only the DEM APPROVED brand of insurance (which includes funding for abortion, illegal aliens and the rest). It’s about having our right to decide on our health care, and to pay for it ourselves if we want to, taken away.
Conservative objections are also founded on the fact that the cost projections of these programs is always WRONG and that another huge program like this will bankrupt the country at a time when we are already running historic deficits.
And just LOOK at that organizational chart. That’s not a cartoon Kevin. It’s a graphic depiction of the organizational compexity of the Pelosi plan. You don’t need to hire tens of thousands of bureaucrats and give them enormous control over our daily lives if your goal is to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I’d really like to know where you got this idea that the GOP would like to prevent anyone who would “ease the suffering of a fellow human?” The real “criminal behavior” here is the person or persons who are misleading you into thinking that the GOP and conservatives want people to suffer.
Mike Thompson (D-CA) – North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson doesn’t think the House of Representatives health care bill is perfect, but he thinks it’s a historic step forward.
”I don’t think it’s close to perfect,” Thompson said Saturday afternoon, hours before he intended to vote for the bill. “This is like any other major piece of legislation — we’re going to be working on this forever. As long as there are people and there’s a need for health care, we’re going to be refining this legislation. It’s the nature of the beast. But, this bill brings us one step closer to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.”
Mike Thompson is a worthless cull, once a man who won votes from both sides of the aisle, now and in recent years he has shown himself to be a partisan tool. He was going to vote for this bill in the very beginning, before the Recess when they were trying to ram it through. Before anyone, including himself, had read it, before anyone knew what was in it. Before the Tea Parties, before the “nasty” Town Hall meetings, before the people started asking questions and before the people told him what they thought.
He would have voted for it no matter what was in it – and he has now done just that.
There is no reason for us to pay for Congressmen and Senators like him to fly to Washington and maintain an office there. We know how he will vote. He does not need to be present or to attend any meetings or read any legislation. It is all dictated for him. We can fill in the blank for his vote while he sits on a street corner begging for change.
Gone are the days when Congressmen were Statesmen.
There is an election coming. Register to vote if you haven’t. VOTE even if you have been slacking. Make this one count.
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
You are delusional, can’t do the math and stand to lose everything You ever worked for.
Get ready for a Career change.
@Old Trooper:
It’s interesting that the people who best understand the health care system, those who work in it everyday, those who bill private insurance companies, Medicare, and who also have to bill patients everyday and have to live with the consequences — overwhelmingly are in favor of not merely health care insurance reform but also are in favor of a public option. This was shown in rigorous, recent, peer-review studies, which I’ve referenced before. These would be the doctors who actually work in the system and see how it works.
Those most in favor of both reform and general and public options in particular are primary care physicians — pediatricians, family medicine doctors, internal medicine doctors, geriatricians. Those who are opposed tend to be the likes of plastic surgeons and other surgical specialists who perform lucrative elective surgeries. The health care system today rewards procedures and treatments like chemotherapy (oncologists do very well, under the current system — there’s an interesting chapter in the new book Super Freakonomics which goes through the numbers regarding the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy, relative to the huge amount which is spent on it — something like 40% of all Medicare drug costs). The present system doesn’t reward cognitive medicine — a wise doctor diagnosing a condition and coming up with an effective treatment which doesn’t require some sort of a procedure. This will probably change, somewhat, under a reformed system, but, overall, a majority of all major classes of physicians are in favor of both reform and a “public option.”
I appreciate your concern for my well-being, Old Trooper, but I can take care of myself, under both current and proposed systems. You don’t need to worry about seeing doctors in homeless shelters or collecting unemployment compensation, no matter what system emerges.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I shouldn’t even be posting this eve since I’m short on patience. But this one, Larry….. steam from ears. What a load of horse manure.
Do NOT… I repeat… DO NOT represent your personal circle of friends as the majority here. You want to spread this crap around FA over and over, you’d better come up with something other than your own personal career and reputation as definitive truths. Much as I respect you and your calling, you are only one citizen of this nation here. You are not the mouth piece for your collegues.
And that you even try to pull this shit off is unbelievably offensive.
The rest of your diatribe? Been there, done that with you. You purport the French system as close to perfection, then diss our US system for it’s imperfections. I’ll tell you what, Larry. I’ll take our imperfect private, capitalist system over your and Obama’s touted also-imperfect system any day of the week. Ultimately, since your crowd holds power, those currently in Congressional power are either idiots or turncoats, *and* capping it off with the fact that your icon POTUS is willing to be the sacrificial lamb to convert the US to a Euro-Socialist nation, I’d say you’re going to get what you want in health care. All of you will sanctimonously ignore the wishes of very vocal, non-militant American voices simply because you will decide you know what’s best for all of us in your unmitigated and unforgiveable arrogance.
My only hope is that you … and your children and grandchildren…. live long enough to see the fruits of your political labor. And perhaps you’ll sit with them on your stoop and a rocking chair someday, and regale them with the United States you lived to see in your day, and carelessly tossed to the political wolves in your ultimate stupidity. May that great nation of achievement and excellence RIP.
@Greg (#14): Your numbers (or Reuters’ numbers) are crazy/nuts. And there’s also tons of fraud which goes on in purely private insurance.
When talking about the country going broke, and whatever, you’ve got to realize that — one way or the other — people need health care and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us. We can pay for it in insurance premiums (again, rising 15% this year alone, for small businesses, which are the biggest segment of the engine of our economy, even as the insurance buys less — more exclusions/more limits/more pre-authorizations/higher deductibles/higher co-pays) or you can pay for it in taxes, but the taxes buys more for less.
We are moving to a system where we’ll have a base level of coverage for everyone, improved ability to change jobs, because people won’t be stuck in jobs they don’t like just because they won’t risk losing their health coverage, and we’ll still have the ability to buy supplemental insurance, if we wish to receive concierge levels of care. This is the essence of the German/French/Japanese systems, where there is a conspicuous absence of death panels and other straw bogeymen. All these systems are faced with the same challenges of rising costs which have nothing to do with the forms of payment, but which have everything to do with technology advances. So all health care systems have problems which are going to continue to require continuous adjustment. This is precisely where we are headed, as anyone with the ability to look down the road can see. And Obama will get the credit in the history books as the President who made it happen.
A further thought about “rationing” (which already goes on — and which goes on much more in the private health care sector than in Medicare): The reality is that we can’t pay for every conceivable treatment, for every conceivable patient, whether in the public sector or private sector. We currently have new cancer drugs which cost $10,000 per month and which require a year’s worth of treatment to extend life by an average of one month. The next generation of drugs may cost $20,000 per month to extend life by an additional month. Is one month of life worth $120,000? Is it worth $240,000? At what point is the extra month not worth whatever it costs to deliver it? Again, this is nicely discussed in “Super Freakonomics.”
These are real world problems, which are emerging each month, and, down the road, anyone can see that it will only get worse (until we get penicillin for cancer). These problems have a hope of being addressed and managed with the likes of “Obamacare,” but they won’t be managed by any idea which any Republican has ever offered, at least in public. Obama and the Democrats are the responsible adults, in this case, while the GOP are the children playing blind man’s buff and kick the can down the road, while trying to scare the bejeebers out of everyone with hysterical buzz words like “death panels” and “rationing” and “socialism.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
people need health care and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
What is health without the true basics of life?
people need food and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
people need shelter and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
people need clothing and someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
People need liberty and freedom. If government provides everything and thus “dictates” based on the availability or usage of what government provides, how much of our liberty and freedom will we need to give up for the security to have government providing everything?
If the government takes away some of our liberty and freedom someone has to pay for it. That “someone” is ultimately us.
Larry re: the abortion issue (#4)
Larry regardless of “who’s paying”, the ‘ Obamacare abortion plan’ is vastly misunderstood if relegated to a “number’s issue.” Everyone who wants an abortion always finds a way to pay for it, even if they need to go on a payment plan.
To a conservative, ‘Obamacare abortion’ is like a “ Roe v Wade on steroids.” It’s bad enough we have to live with a totally unconstitutional Roe v Wade, but for the United States, to “socialize abortion” is beyond egregious (unlike a private insurance company that is simply making a “business decision.”)
Who, more than any country in the world, is the greatest protector of human life? Well, we know who it won’t be much longer if Obama gets his way.
I will take bets with anyone interested that there is absolutely NO WAY ‘Obamacare’ will ever pass without abortion coverage or with a conscience clause. Consequently, after our congress has sold it soul for the final votes, I suggest they do us a favor and burn the Declaration of Independence with the signing; why pretend to play the game any longer on the sellout of America?.
I also have to bring attention here to a bit of irony regarding Obama’s “closest advisor, Anita Dunn, who “so often turns to her greatest ‘political’ (yeah, like Mother Teresa was ever the least bit ‘political’) philosopher Mother Teresa. The irony is this: Mother T, also a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, passionately warned that “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” I guess our Nobel Peace Prize winner most pro abort president in US History didn’t get that little bit of wisdom from his ‘Mao advisor’, unless of course, O’care is really about power and control. Just sayin’.
Can someone get me out of spam #24 ? Thanks
What’s the baseline these guys are calling for where you get “free” healthcare??? how poor is poor?? If everyone ends up basically paying for a plan…. isn’t this more an act of COWARDICE than “reform”??? I mean if most of us already have coverage (I do) .. wouldn’t it be EASIER to just “bill” (and ENFORCE IT) those who freeload?? Work payoff programs and the like??? You owe a big bill, and uncle sugar pays.. you work for uncle sugar till you are paid up! Those who don’t, or cry that “slavery” crap…. there’s the door!!
it seems it’s ALWAYS this way!! Easier to pork Joe Taxpayer than to tell Ted Freeloader to pony up or beat feet!!!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Still pushing that lie that the majority of doctors are for this monstrosity?
Give it up Larry. It wasn’t funny the first time and now it’s just sad.
@Mata, @Mike
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/14/e24
This most recent study is entirely consistent with the results of another peer-reviewed study, published in a different medical journal, a couple of months ago.
P.S. (to Mike): Your cavalier use of the verb “to lie” is a reflection of the sad state of political discourse in general, circa 2009.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, for every poll you cite how doctors just love this public option bit, there are polls that state the opposite. But as you are a fan of the NEJM as the quintessential final word of fact… as if asking 2130 doctors is a definitive statement of anything save that only 43% of them felt strongly enough to return the survey questionaire at all. Of those 90% were urban practitioners for their various specialties, and 70% were operating primarily out of hospitals. So again I will say to you, you may be able to speak for yourself, and perhaps your circle of friends. We’ll even give you the benefit of adding the 58.3% of those 2130 responders (or 1241 more physicians) who agree with you.
Considering that the BLS put the number of physicians and surgeons in the US at 633,000 in 2006, the opinions of 1241 is tandamount to .000196% of the number of medical professionals three years ago… and likely even less today if you are correct the field is growing in number.
Forgive me if I’m not wow’ed by your statistical proclamations.
The responders were reacting to a proposal that genuinely combined private/public options…. altho 58% of the physicians were specifically in support of lowering the Medicare age to 55… not offering it to the world at large. That’s significantly different that what the House bill that passed is proposing. But then, they weren’t asked if they support Pelosi health care… they were asked if they support public/private options… which we *already* have in Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. You might as well be asking them if they like turkey when there’s a chicken in the oven.
Let’s talk about your business decision to opt out of the public option because of the financial drag on your business yet again…. You cut the Medicare public option patients for a “concierge” service. Your “concierge” service will be defunct as this public option becomes the sole insurance provider… as it is designed to do, and as Obama and his supporters openly claim is their goal. You will no longer have the private concierge option to pay your prices, and you too will be stuck with whatever panel of czars decide is a fitting payment for your services.
I look thru the NEJM various supporting documents for your prized poll, and I see nothing that indicates these 1241 responders either understand that single payer is the goal with this legislation, or that they want to see single payer as the end result. In fact, I see just the opposite…. that they are fine with working with the current system of private and public options that exist, perhaps extend the Medicare benefits to 55+ and nothing more.
Funny… that’ ain’t what’s happening, is it?
@PDill (#24):
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=20991
– Larry W/HB
On a wholly different tangent than the “physicians want this” argument Larry again presents, this Larry comment is a bit more in line with the original topic:
First, Larry… no on denies that the cost of health care is going up. And of course the privately insured are eating their shorts since they are making up for the windfall loss that the *public* option incurs for the medical providers.
And we already have debunked the “insurers getting rich” BS talking point when it’s revealed they are functioning on an approx 2% profit margin.
This brings us to the visual aid above… a graph of lots of different bureaucrats, to be paid for by the taxpayer (perhaps the quest by Obama to get some of those jobs he promises to create?). Is the math so fuzzy that the costs of these new bureaucracies isn’t accounted for in that trillion dollar price tag? Afterall, this is part of “the costs”.
And since when has adding gargantuan administrative overhead costs ever been effective in lowering costs for a business?
The point of any “reform” is to lower costs. The goal of any “remaking” of health care is to reinvent the wheel in the image of Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s social utopia. They do so love to spend other people’s money. And despite a budget this year that’s three times the size of last year’s budget, their efficiency has not improved. But their thirst for yet more control of the taxpayers’ money grows insatiability.
Reform? Bunk… This is Obama carrying out his promise to “fundamentally” remake American into his father’s dreams. This legislation is designed to destroy health care as we know it… not bring down costs.
@Mata (#30):
Mata, it is perfectly appropriate for you to fault polling methodology, or whatever, but that’s not what you were doing, when you wrote:
Can you at least acknowledge that your representation (#23) of what I was doing in my post (#20) was inaccurate?
With respect to your comments about statistical sampling, this is how all polls work. The 43% response rate is pretty good, by the standards of most polls, as is the size of the sample. My statement (quoted in the first paragraph of #28 ) was entirely supportable, as written.
Let’s elaborate on this: Yes, I dropped out of Medicare, because I didn’t like their reimbursement level. But this was at a time when many of the large private insurers (e.g. Blue Cross, Aetna, United Healthcare) didn’t pay anything, leaving their clients (my patients) to pay the whole bill (my patients won 16 of 16 cases against Blue Cross in small claims court, for amounts ranging from $1500 to $4500, but still Blue Cross kept denying, because most cancer patients don’t want to go through the stress of doing this). P.S. Just got another shout out, passed along only since your brought this up:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/content/view/284/2/lang,english/
With regard to the US government ever “outlawing” the “private option,” that’s an entirely theoretical risk; “private options” exist in Germany, France, Japan — even in England, where the majority of physicians are actually government employees, unlike in any of the other Western democracies. But, even in England, there are private practitioners and a “private option.” It’s virtually inconceivable that a “private option” would ever be OUTLAWED here. In any event, it’s the same sort of scaremongering as “rationing” and “death panels.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, I’d be happy to “acknowledge” misinterpretation had I done so. But I didn’t. You definitively stated that those who know best… who work in the medical profession……overwhelmingly are in favor of not merely health care insurance reform but also are in favor of a public option. This was shown in rigorous, recent, peer-review studies, which I’ve referenced before.
I have taken your peer-review an showed you facts you tend to ignore. That we already live in a world with public/private options. Why wouldn’t most physicians agree to continue to support our existing public/private combination? Duh wuh
I also pointed out that your idea of “overwhelming” is less than, dare I say it?, overwhelming.
What you glossed over was that the “public option” the physicians favored was the expansion of existing Medicare to citizens 55 and older.
Again… the NEJM asked the physicians/surgeons if they liked turkey while they were baking a chicken in the oven.
Now, don’t be inserting the word “outlaw” into my comments. I have never said that the O’Pelosi care was “outlawing”, banning or any other similar term relating to private health care. What I have said, and what other Congressional leaders, including Obama, have said, is that this is a step to single payer… THE option they prefer.
Let me repeat that slowly… this is a step to single payer. Digest thoroughly, please.
There will be no need to “outlaw” or “ban” private insurance. It will simply be driven out of business by the bloated government public option.
And please spare us more comparisons of other countries. The chicken in the oven that you are labeling as turkey does not resemble France, Germany or anyone else’s. Yet if you were to find those that shared the most similar structure to Obama/Pelosi proposal, it would be Canada and England.
>>Let me repeat that slowly… this is a step to single payer. Digest thoroughly, please.<<
There isn't anything in the House bill which remotely hints at "single payer." I'm sure that there are lots of things which Barack Obama might wish for, which he'll never get. A "single payer," with a total government monopoly which doesn't exist even in England may be his secret wish, but if wishes were dollars, we'd all be rich.
It's the same thing as rationing and death panels. Just more scaremongering.
You accused me of basing my statements on personal opinions of me and my friends. This was wrong.
You misrepresent the NEJM study.
No, this was an entirely separate issue (see Panel A, in the referenced paper).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mata (reply to your #33 went to spam)
While waiting for my prior reply to Mata’s #33 to appear:
WTF ????
Where in the world did you get that gem of an analogy?
– Larry W/HB
There isn’t anything in the House bill which remotely hints at “single payer.” I’m sure that there are lots of things which Barack Obama might wish for, which he’ll never get. A “single payer,” with a total government monopoly which doesn’t exist even in England may be his secret wish, but if wishes were dollars, we’d all be rich.
>>Damn you’re good!! Read and digested ALL 1900+ pages since Saturday night!! How’d YOU get a full copy of the new bill so Quick???
>>Rep. John Conyers (D) (of course! who else would say something so STUPID on Nationwide TV!)
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Rep. John Conyers. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
>> So are we supposed to believe you ALSO have a law degree??? According to the PARTY in
POWER you are NOT ABLE to understand this new law WITHOUT at least TWO lawyers and 2(3?) (the bill THEN was SMALLER so add a day now) days….. if you are a lawyer, then I guess we’re up to 4-5 days seeing you are only ONE lawyer and the Democrats say you NEED TWO…. don’t look at me, I’m only quoting the guys who WROTE the damn thing!!
Well, didya???
What is SICK is that a guy, with that kind of an ASSININE mentality, is “LEADING” this country??? Writing and passing LAWS we’re stuck with, and the Buffoon ADMITS they don’t have a CLUE what they are LEGISLATING….. and neither the MSM or Oppostion party even CALLS them on it!!! Or his own Constitutents don’t demand his FIRING!! (recall, impeachment, whatever process)
@Hankster:
Let’s say that you are going to “reorganize 16% of the economy.”
How many pages would you feel are appropriate for describing how this objective is to be achieved?
2,000?
1,000?
500?
100?
10?
1?
What type of an organization chart? What’s the maximum number of permissible boxes and lines and arrows?
Just curious.
It’s a gargantuan undertaking. A breathtaking undertaking. I’m sure that they didn’t get it totally right; probably made some really boneheaded mistakes. It’ll no doubt get reshaped, not only by the present Congress and President, but also by future Congresses and future Presidents. But it’s a beginning. True health insurance portability (which will allow people to change jobs and to change states, without having to base this decision on whether or not they’ll lose their insurance coverage). No lifetime limits on coverage. Dramatic expansion in people covered. There’s much more to like than to loathe, in my opinion.
– Larry W/HB
Larry, re: the Bishops and abortion, no worries (to the dems), it means nothing; won’t last. Besides, how could anyone, Bishop or FA reader, have a valid debate when all was done in secret and deception? What the Bishops did was for the most part meaningless, good intentioned or not, if for no other reason they where “blinded” to the whole bill.
Here’s an accurate take on it (short read).
Excerpt:
@PDill:
I don’t agree. The Senate is more conservative than the House. Whatever bill gets finally passed and signed into law WILL have the robust provisions that (1) no “public option” plans can pay for abortion and (2) no private plans subsidized with public money can pay for abortion.
I don’t know how you can criticize the Bishops for supporting the bill.
What’s more important, a “conscience clause” or reducing abortions? Abortion rights advocates are furious about this, and with good reason. Millions upon millions of women will be moving from private plans, which pay for abortions, to public and public-subsidized private plans, which will not pay for abortions. This will clearly reduce abortions in this country and how can you criticize the Bishops for supporting this?
The House bill has a very important provision which will clearly reduce abortions and the bill is supported by Catholic bishops, who have always been in favor of not only reducing abortions but improving access to health care through government-funded mechanisms. I don’t know why the bill should not, therefore, be supported by the Catholic laity.
The conscience clause can be a separate war, to be fought another day.
Personally, I strongly support the prohibition of public funds from even indirectly subsidizing abortions which are performed for reasons other than rape, incest, and threat to the life (not “merely” health — which is an exception open to abuse) of the mother. I hope (and believe) that this provision will remain in the final bill ultimately signed into law by the President.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125779914376639381.html
It’s a gargantuan undertaking. A breathtaking undertaking. I’m sure that they didn’t get it totally right; probably made some really boneheaded mistakes.
>>>So why the mad rush to cram this “overwhelming change” through??? How about, bite by bite, step by step??? And GET IT RIGHT!!! Think it through….. but no…… HURRY HURRY or we’re DOOMED!! B.S.!!!
The darn thing isn’t supposed to go into effect until what, 2013??? (Note:AFTER the next ELECTION.. COINCIDENCE”????? NOT!!) So there is PLENTY of time to work thru this and do it, RIGHT!! So why the mad dash??? To jam it thru BEFORE anyone had the time to study it….
If not, explain WHY!!!
The left keeps claiming that “Bush” used “emergencies” to do his “evil deeds”…..
Obama is doing the EXACT same thing…. Crisis!!~ Crisis!! Crisis!! Some “Change”…….
Abortion-rights advocates say it marks the biggest change in federal abortion policy in years and significantly erodes access to the procedure.
>>The bill isn’t FINISHED tho is it?????
Also….””Let’s say ….that you are going to “reorganize 16% of the economy.””
>>ok…. lets ASK… Is it even CONSTITUTIONAL for the Government to stick it’s nose in and DO this?!?!?!?!
@Hankster:
Why not take it “step by step?” Because it will never get done that way. It’s a bold initiative; getting it through is taking the mother of all legislative sausage-making efforts.
By the time it finally gets signed into law, there shall have been lots of time for everyone to get their voices heard. From Tea Parties and Town Meetings and marches on Washington in the summer to opinion polls to cable television to talk radio to mainstream media to blogs to op-eds to Sunday morning news/interview shows to debate on the House and Senate floors. This is one issue which isn’t slipping in, under the horizon.
Why not wait? Well, for one thing, the Dem majority may very well be a thing of the past, come January 2011. National health care was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt and it’s never been done yet. Of course, conservatives will protest and oppose it. George Will pointed out that this is why we have two parties. Checks and balances.
Often stalemate. But occasionally something big does get done.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Because it will never get done that way.
>> Maybe it SHOULDN’T “get done this way”!!! So you agree it’s a “ram it down their throats like it or not” approach!!
By the time it finally gets signed into law, there shall have been lots of time for everyone to get their voices heard.
>> And IGNORED….. see above attitude… “my way or the highway”!! you said it….not me!
Why not wait? Well, for one thing, the Dem majority may very well be a thing of the past, come January 2011.
>> So without a POWER majority, the right thing won’t be done??? Or, is it the LIBERAL thing won’t be done!! You know, if the MAJORITY wants something, be they left or right in the majority… the voters most likely will FORCE their way… getting voted OUT of Office is a great motivator…. the TRUTH here is…. the left needs to do this BECAUSE they KNOW, once they do this, they’re gone…
so KICK EM while we CAN!!! Great attitude…. if the plan is good, AND it’s needed, it’ll get passed REGARDLESS of who is in charge…. Democrats know this, which is why they are pushing so hard….. because given a CHOICE… they know a public vote would DEFEAT it!!!!
Lastly….. I see, in typical Liberal fashion, you totally IGNORED my question on “Is it even LEGAL”???? You know, that pesky ol Constitution???? But then again…. those BAILOUTS were most likely not Constitutional EITHER… so legit or not don’t seem to be an issue to this administration…. is THAT the new “liberal” way???
@Hankster:
I didn’t ignore it, and I’m not a “typical liberal” (well, maybe by FA standards, but not by real world standards). I didn’t comment on your question because I’m not a constitutional scholar. I presume it’s legal, because, of all the arguments made against it, illegality has not been on the front burner of complaints.
And, yes, I agree with you that this whole thing is entirely political. The Dems didn’t put in the anti-abortion provision because they wanted it, it’s there because they had to put it in in order to get it passed. But it is there, and it’s a better bill because of it. Very effective politicking by the Catholic Bishops. Rather than yelling at town meetings and obstructing, they effectively used their political clout to get the bill changed for the better.
The GOP wants malpractice tort reform? Simple, agree to vote for the bill and in goes tort reform. Or else bellow and whine and get nothing. The GOP isn’t out to get the best bill possible, it’s out to kill the bill. I’m not saying that the GOP is totally wrong and I’m not saying that the Dems are totally right. But politics is the art of the possible. They are doing what’s possible, not what’s ideal and not what could be done if the party out of power wanted to leverage the best deal it could, as opposed to betting the ranch on killing the bill. That’s their choice.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry W :
What change? Other than the windfall tax monies that get funneled into corrupt Planned Parenthood, the government has never paid for abortions. Who can keep up with the deceitful rhetoric of these folks? Isn’t it good enough that they have the ‘legal’ right to kill their unborn children, but now they want the government to PAY for it? Nonsense, and so is the fact that abortions will decrease. If they want an “abortion bill”, they need to elect someone who will work for one, this is “healthcare” remember? Perhaps someone needs to remind them that the US Government is designed to protect life, not kill it.
And that brings me to my main point: that this is all a game. I guarantee you, if abortion isn’t part of the package, ‘health’ care simply won’t happen, it’s that simple.
Larry I do respect the fact that you are against abortion personally, especially the bogus ‘mother’s health’ clause, which pretty much invalidates any bill since “emotional stress” could mean the same thing as an ectopic pregnancy. I just wish you were against it “enough” that the thought of voting for a party that supports it would be inconceivable to you.
Since Obama’s election, I conceded that “politically”, we lost the abortion war. It’s bad enough to have it legal, but it’s unimaginable to think that the US of A will be “providing” them; border line eugenics, I think, since over 50% of them will eliminate African Americans. It’s never been a coincidence that Planned Parenthood has the bulk of their clinics in black neighborhoods.
well now we’re getting somewhere!
It’s not legal from the standpoint that federal gov has no legal standing to be getting into, or interfering with, PRIVATE business!!! Now, legally “regulating” is one thing, but getting INTO the business of off the scale…….
They did it with the car companies…..
AIG etc…..
It seems following the law is the furthest thing from the minds of those in DC these days…. which is WHY i give them ALL a “NO vote!!!
As to “agree to this and you’ll get a “gimmee”….. umm isn’t that the kind of stuff “Tony Soprano” would have pulled??? You give me this, and give you THAT??? Your principles be damned…. you’re all for sale!! An offer you “can’t refuse” ???? Why not just SELL their votes??? THAT right THERE is why this country is falling FAST!! We’re selling our souls.. “for a deal”….
Sorry, but that’s not the government as it was explained to be back when I was in school…..
@PDill:
You don’t understand the coup the Catholic Bishops pulled off.
Millions upon millions of women are now covered by private insurance which pays for abortions. Under the new health care law, millions upon millions of these same women will receive government subsidized private insurance or a “public option” — neither of which will pay for abortion.
The more people who switch from a private plan to a public plan, the fewer abortions.
Now, you’ve got a plan endorsed by the Catholic Bishops, which provides health care for more people and which results in fewer abortions.
But you are worried because somehow it’s going to be about evil Obama staying in power long enough to gain power over life and death and kill babies and grandma?
The Bishops have got it right. I support their continuing efforts in shaping the final form of health care reform which emerges.
Do you?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I see Larry’s engaged in multiple conversations in my absence. So forgive me for regressing to address some of our back and forth.
Responses to @Larry’s #34 .
First and foremost, of course there isn’t a “hint” using the words “single payer” in these multiple proposed bills. If they used those words specifically, the bill would be shot on sight and DOA. However just because the words “single payer” are not used, does not mean the end goal is exactly what Obama and sundry others have stated as their desire. I will remind you with the video below.
Not enough? Let’s check out a few of those unimportant Obama associations and partners in Congressional crime.
Naw… single payer just *couldn’t* be the goal, right? And your quest is not really to cure cancer…. right. sigh
Secondly, perhaps you may want to brush up on the definition of “single payer” which means that the payments are controllled by a “single payer”… ala the government…. whether the services are administered in govt or private facilities. By Congressional notions, they are creating a system that functions from a medical trust fund account. And we all know how those “trust fund” accounts go… as the SS fund has been empty for years from Congressional looting. Any “public option” is designed as a “single payer” with payments collected and held by federal entities, and reimbursements decided by public entities.
Which then brings me to@your other “WTF?” comment INRE my analogy of the House O’healthcare as resembling NOTHING that other nations have, but certainly closer to Canada or England than to France.
As I pointed out, the Obama/Pelosi (ultimately) socialized medicine will be collecting the cash for the gov’t coffers, and gov’t will control the reimbursements and handling of those funds. Additionally, they are slamming employers with mandates, and penalities if they don’t fall into line. Individuals will be penalized if they don’t have proof of insurance, all which is tied into IRS time… filing tax returns. Get my drift so far?
By contrast, the French system’s money, per a June 2009 Medical News Today article, is controlled by employer and unions with gov’t oversight. Nothing similar to France when it comes to who gets, and doles out, the money. There are no mandates on employers, nor are citizens fined and penalized via their tax returns.
Let’s compare the Obama/Pelosi take-the-money-and-run plans with Canada now… again, from this year’s Medical News Today, Canada’s system is funded thru their sales and income taxes (i.e. a mandate thru their tax system) and is, as they describe it, “socialized insurance”. Meaning the nation becomes a huge risk pool. The low risk pay more, the high risk pay less. Very socialized utopia, don’t you think? Well, maybe if you’re in the high risk group. I’m quite sure the low risk feel quite skewered.
However unlike the greedy wench, Pelosi, the Canadians let their provinces and territories set the budget and administer the funds. At least Canada’s government brings it down to local levels, and doesn’t place the power of the money and decisions in the hands of the federal honchos.
While we’re comparing that “gem of analogy” you are missing since you aren’t paying much attention to details, let’s talk about England’s health care and their recent “payment by results” changes…. you know, the same stuff the libs talk about when they want to reimburse doctors based on performance? Oh, even in it’s early evaluation stages, England has found a reduction in costs. Overall that’s good. But then, that depends upon the meaning of “performance”, don’t you think? And, of course, the time. Can we assume that someone in excruciating pain may certainly feel better and somewhat immune from what ails them if the drugs mask the problem instead of curing the problem?
On this “performance pay” bit, I’m still the jury out. Not sold on it entirely until I see just what the measures of successful “performance” and “results” are. But that’s another story. Right now, we’re discussing whether the odd ball US proposals (which I still say resembles no one) are closer to Canada or England than they are to France. The French have no “pay for results” reimbursement criteria.
So far it looks like the US Congress has taken the talking point of “French health care public/private options” (which we *already have* here), and mutiliated it into Frankenstein healthcare by incorporating all of the worst features of the worst systems to give it life.
Now let’s go back to the “single payer” definition from medterms.com again….
Doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from government. We already have “socialized medicine” by those standards with the military VA benefits and facilities. Let’s look at Obama’s long range plans… pay for education (medical would top his list…). Similar to France there in that the State pays for their education and they work for govt hospitals.
You’ve opted out of low ball reimbursements for your financial health. You did this for your own survival. And Larry, as much as I bring this up over and over, I’m trying to make a point. I applaud your survival instincts. I do not applaud your drive to create a system where you will be forced into a system where the majority of the nation’s citizens will not enjoy the fruits of your research and accomplishments. You will not be reimbursed your costs by a single payer, govt controlled public option. And their very existance will destroy the private insurance market as unaffordable but by the most wealthy… assuming we have many left after all this spending frenzy that tripled the budget and massively ballooned the national debt to the unimaginable in under a year.
There doesn’t need to be the words “single payer”… or as you understand it to be “socialized medicine”… in these bills. They are designed as the first step to just that system. They won’t tell you that you are buying a Volkswagen when you think you’re buying a Cadillac. They’ll let you figure that out a few years downline.
Larry said; “The more people who switch from a private plan to a public plan, the fewer abortions.”
That is yet to be proven. And if the numbers of abortions per year increases after most people switch to a public health insurance plan? Look, I am not for banning abortion. I just don’t believe what you said on your post.