The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: rojawe on June 16, 2009, 09:01:20 AM
-
Morning Bell
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2009
Reality Begins Bursting Health Care Hype
Yesterday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary analysis of the Kennedy-Dodd health care plan, and the results were truly frightening. Assessing just Title I of the draft legislation, CBO estimated the plan would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit while only extending health insurance to a net 16 million more Americans. As scary as that is, what is even more disturbing is what costs the CBO did not estimate: “The proposal does not include a ‘public plan’ that would be offered in the exchanges, nor does it contain provisions that would require employers to offer health insurance benefits or impose a fee or tax on them if they did not offer insurance coverage to their workers.”
Recent Entries
IRS to Tax Employer-Provided Cell Phones
Who’s Telling the Truth about Health Care?
Baucus Should Support, Not Undermine CBO Integrity
Protecting Military Voting Rights
Breaking Down the Costs of Waxman-Markey Global Warming Legislation
Even without the public plan, the CBO analysis undercuts one of the fundamental promises President Barack Obama has repeatedly made about health care reform. Speaking to the American Medical Association yesterday, President Obama promised: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” The CBO disagrees. According to their analysis, while the Kennedy-Dodd bill would enable 39 million Americans to obtain health insurance, the plan would kick about 15 million people out of the system because their employers would no longer offer insurance, and coverage from other sources would decline by 8 million. These numbers will only look worse once a public plan is factored in. And the public plan is just one of the biggest problems in the Kennedy-Dodd bill:
A Public Plan Will Deprive Millions of Americans of Their Current Health Care - An independent analysis by the Lewin Group, for example, shows that a public plan depending on eligibility and payments rates could result in up to 119.1 million Americans being switched by their employers from their existing coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage so that employers can reduce benefit costs. Thus a public plan, especially combined with a mandate on employers to offer government-specified coverage or pay a tax, would mean that millions of Americans would be pushed out of the private coverage they have today.
Mandates on Businesses and Individuals Act as Costly New Tax - The committee bill would impose “a shared responsibility” on both individuals and employers to pay for health coverage. These requirements amount to mandates, though the penalties are not spelled out. An employer mandate would be a regressive tax on business that would be directly shifted to employees in the form of reduced future wages or job losses. It would also spur many employers to drop private coverage, paying the tax rather than having to buy government-specified insurance. An individual mandate would force Americans to buy a set of health benefits designed by the government or suffer some penalty.
Federal Regulation of Health Insurance Undermine State Flexibility - Under the committee bill, Congress and federal officials would exert a high degree of control over health insurance, including underwriting and rating rules, and would prescriptively organize the market for competing health plans. That would limit the ability of states to design rules and market rules that fit local conditions.
As more details are added to the Kennedy-Dodd plan, its trillion-dollar price tag will only go up. And there is still nothing in the bill about how to pay for all the new spending. That means trillions more debt for our children. There is an alternative. A patient centered alternative that keeps health care decisions between doctors and patients instead of centralizing power in Washington. Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) bill, the Patient’s Choice Act, is just one example of what that approach could look like. Listen to Ryan explain his proposal, here.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/11/health-care-teleconference-with-rep-paul-ryan/
QUICK HITS
President Obama was booed by doctors at the American Medical Association meeting yesterday after he refused to consider caps for medical malpractice lawsuits.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98RBO9G0&show_article=1
-
Q "Are you buying into this Socialized Medicine Crap"
A No !
-
Again, no. The closest I'll get is letting any American citizen buy into the federal employee healthcare plan on their own nickel if private health care isn't available through their employer.
FQ13
-
Added the links for you......
And of course my answer to the question is 'No."
-
I do agree with one part of his plan...
going from a paper system to a electronic one for medical records...
-
By Debra J. Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/48106117.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
This was reprinted in the Minneapolis paper’s editorial page.
Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (headed by Romer) issued a report on June 2, "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform," that concluded: "The central finding of this report is that genuine health care reform has substantial benefits." You have to marvel at the ability of political staffers to congratulate themselves on great successes even before their plan has been adopted.
The report does a fine job of outlining the arguments in favor of containing health care costs. Every year, the rise in these costs eats more out of workers' paychecks. For some readers, premium inflation means that their take-home pay cannot keep pace with inflation and thus they are effectively suffering a pay cut. To make matters worse, many employees also are paying higher copayments for health care. Obviously, if Obama can put the brakes on this runaway health cost train, workers, employers and taxpayers will benefit.
But can he make health care universal -- that is, expand coverage to more Americans -- and still save taxpayers money without cutting back on the level of care that most Americans now enjoy?
Many times we hear about the virtues of the Canadian socialized health care system. One would expect that, after decades of having the system in place, they should have it running at top efficiency. One measure that you think we could compare is the rate at which health care costs are escalating in Canada vs. the US. Surly, Canada with socialized medicine must have a handle on controlling medical inflation.
Wrong…
Watson Wyatt put out a report in 2008 that indicates that Canada has a higher rate of medical cost inflation than the US.
Rate of Medical Cost Inflation Year over Year
2006 2007 2008
United States 8.3% 8.0% 11.0%
Canada 12.3% 11.5% 12.0%
Obama-Care has nothing to do with saving money! It is about his personal power and government control of every aspect of our lives.
Just say NO to Obama-Care!
-
Many times we hear about the virtues of the Canadian socialized health care system. One would expect that, after decades of having the system in place, they should have it running at top efficiency. One measure that you think we could compare is the rate at which health care costs are escalating in Canada vs. the US. Surly, Canada with socialized medicine must have a handle on controlling medical inflation.
Wrong…
Watson Wyatt put out a report in 2008 that indicates that Canada has a higher rate of medical cost inflation than the US.
Rate of Medical Cost Inflation Year over Year
2006 2007 2008
United States 8.3% 8.0% 11.0%
Canada 12.3% 11.5% 12.0%
Obama-Care has nothing to do with saving money! It is about his personal power and government control of every aspect of our lives.
Just say NO to Obama-Care!
ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTELY!
-
If Euro-socialist health care is so great how come so many of them come HERE for medical care ?
-
I do agree with one part of his plan...
going from a paper system to a electronic one for medical records...
Yea! Sounds great in theory...till the feds start looking into your medical records to determine if you have ANY health or mental concerns that might prohibit you (in there eyes) from owning a gun. It will be done under the guise of "public safety" but it's just another back door gun grab.
Still don't believe me? Ok try this: The most liberal and anti gun media outlet is NBC / MSNBC. These media outlets are owned by General Electric...Ok so what right? Here's the kicker. Jeffery Immelt owns GE. He's a BIG buddy of BHO, not to mention an anti gun nut. General Electric is the company that is poised to accept the (no bid) contract to make all of these medical records digital.
AND YOU TRUST THEM TO KEEP THOSE FILES CONFIDENTIAL???? ???
-
did I say the data base would be in control of the goverment?
I don't trust my doctors to keep them confidental...that being said, my medical records are pretty damn boring.
-
AND YOU TRUST THEM TO KEEP THOSE FILES CONFIDENTIAL???? ???
I still have the letters informing me of my Veteran and Military records getting hacked. I'm all for electronics when it saves time and money but my medical records are rather lengthy and none of anyones business.
The Government cannot be responsible to keep things private. The only way two Government employees could keep a secret is if you shot one of 'em!
-
I still have the letters informing me of my Veteran and Military records getting hacked. I'm all for electronics when it saves time and money but my medical records are rather lengthy and none of anyones business.
The Government cannot be responsible to keep things private. The only way two Government employees could keep a secret is if you shot one of 'em!
Only one? Ms. Plame, and a host of others, would beg to differ. As a previous poster said, this could lead to mischief. Taken a prozac? No gun. Been to rehab for alchohol, no matter how many years ago? No gun. Complain about stress? No gun. A smoker or had VD, prone to poor judgement. No gun. A priest, a doctor and a lawyer, you shouldn't have to worry about Uncle Sam eaves dropping. Its not the case with MDs now, insurance companies have required Docs to make their records available so they can only insure young healthy folks. Let the government in and it will get worse.
FQ13
-
I do agree with one part of his plan...
going from a paper system to a electronic one for medical records...
What happens when some one "loses" a lap top, or the economic collapse causes power plants to shut down for lack of fuel ? No power, no records. Yes Hospitals have back up generators, but how long will they run with no more fuel coming in ? Paper is good.
-
I still have the letters informing me of my Veteran and Military records getting hacked. I'm all for electronics when it saves time and money but my medical records are rather lengthy and none of anyones business.
The Government cannot be responsible to keep things private. The only way two Government employees could keep a secret is if you shot one of 'em!
What ever happened with that Class action law suit any way ? PM me if you want.
-
Yea! Sounds great in theory...till the feds start looking into your medical records to determine if you have ANY health or mental concerns that might prohibit you (in there eyes) from owning a gun. It will be done under the guise of "public safety" but it's just another back door gun grab.
Still don't believe me? Ok try this: The most liberal and anti gun media outlet is NBC / MSNBC. These media outlets are owned by General Electric...Ok so what right? Here's the kicker. Jeffery Immelt owns GE. He's a BIG buddy of BHO, not to mention an anti gun nut. General Electric is the company that is poised to accept the (no bid) contract to make all of these medical records digital.
AND YOU TRUST THEM TO KEEP THOSE FILES CONFIDENTIAL???? ???
Don't need to grab the guns - just deny care. You will either give them up willingly or die in the meantime.
These people think in terms of years and decades, not months.
-
I'm remined of a Groucho Marx saying: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies."
-
Don't need to grab the guns - just deny care. You will either give them up willingly or die in the meantime.
These people think in terms of years and decades, not months.
Maybe they do, but I've been thinking in terms of ropes and trees. ::)
-
What happens when some one "loses" a lap top, or the economic collapse causes power plants to shut down for lack of fuel ? No power, no records. Yes Hospitals have back up generators, but how long will they run with no more fuel coming in ? Paper is good.
they lose paper records all the time... no real diffrence. Mine were sent out as a child by mistake.
Medical records can be life or death. take my niece for example, she is deathly algeric to opiates. if she is in a car wreck and they give her one, they would litterly only have about 30 seconds before she dead, there is nothing they could do to save her.
-
" Mine were sent out as a child by mistake."
I've thought you kind of childish on occasion, I can see how that would happen ;D
-
Yea! Sounds great in theory...till the feds start looking into your medical records to determine if you have ANY health or mental concerns that might prohibit you (in there eyes) from owning a gun. It will be done under the guise of "public safety" but it's just another back door gun grab.
Still don't believe me? Ok try this: The most liberal and anti gun media outlet is NBC / MSNBC. These media outlets are owned by General Electric...Ok so what right? Here's the kicker. Jeffery Immelt owns GE. He's a BIG buddy of BHO, not to mention an anti gun nut. General Electric is the company that is poised to accept the (no bid) contract to make all of these medical records digital.
AND YOU TRUST THEM TO KEEP THOSE FILES CONFIDENTIAL???? ???
First to answer the question. Not no but HE.................LL no. Regarding confidentiality, I was in Healthcare my entire career before I retired last year. Records (especially electronic records) are kept confidential by law (HIPPA). HIPPA violations will result in immediate termination for individuals that disclose private health information and in big fines to the hospital, clinic or docs office. The fines are per instance, so if electronic records are leaked, it could be thousands of individual records and the fines for each instance would shut down the most profitable hospital. HIPPA is serious stuff. Healthcare workers get fired and usually lose their licenses and a major medical records breach would doom most hospitals.
Jeff Immelt is the CEO of General Electric, not the owner. I first met him when he was the CEO of GEMS (General Electric Medical Systems) before he took over for Jack Welch as CEO for all of GE. His dealings with BHO are very scary. Fortunately many hospitals already have Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) and they have CT, MRI, X-Ray images and other medical imaging on PACS (Picture Archive and Communications Systems). So far GE has not been a major player. Their PACS is not very good and their information systems, that have to be integrated for EMR are pretty weak as well. That has left them with a modest market share. Thus far none of BHOs proposals include actually taking over hospitals. He would have to do that to change all EMRs and PACS to GE. GE does provide the lion's share of PACS to the military. They purchased Loral under Jack Welch and Loral had the PACS contract with the military at that time. The Loral system was pretty good before GE loused it up,
-
Italy had socialized medical care. They also used power tools on patients and aspirin was your main pain reliever. God forbid if you had something serious happen to you over there.
-
GE had a Meter plant in Somersworth NH (that one may still be in business) and one in Dover that made castings for them, (I KNOW that one closed years ago, They are another one of those Unionized Companies where GOOD workers need not apply. No one I knew who worked there went to "EARN" a paycheck, they all went to get their hours. If I were hiring for a company and saw GE, or Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on the resume I probably would NOT hire that person, and I damn sure don't like working with them.
-
BIG HELL NO FROM ME :-X
-
they lose paper records all the time... no real diffrence. Mine were sent out as a child by mistake.
Huge difference between losing one case file and a laptop containing potentially thousands of people's records containing all manner of information. Besides, records aren't supposed to leave the hosp[ital - laptops do all of the time. Plus, electronic records can be much more easily hacked, sometimes without the organization even knowing they've been hacked. Sorry, my industry, something I do know a little about. And it happens all of the time.
Fortunately many hospitals already have Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) and they have CT, MRI, X-Ray images and other medical imaging on PACS (Picture Archive and Communications Systems). So far GE has not been a major player. Their PACS is not very good and their information systems, that have to be integrated for EMR are pretty weak as well. That has left them with a modest market share. Thus far none of BHOs proposals include actually taking over hospitals. He would have to do that to change all EMRs and PACS to GE. GE does provide the lion's share of PACS to the military. They purchased Loral under Jack Welch and Loral had the PACS contract with the military at that time. The Loral system was pretty good before GE loused it up,
IT in the company I used to work for was very poorly run, archaic, manual processes even though they had $70 billion in holdings, mostly built through M&A. Every time they acquired a new bank, they forced the new bank to revamp its IT processes to follow the old, archaic processes instead of the more streamlined processes the new bank already had implemented. So don't put much faith in GE staying with a relatively small market share - their way of life can be imposed on hospitals, and quality, security, efficiency and other related formerly "good" things will go by the boards as long as there is a crisis to be exploited. Speaking of which . . .
Thus far none of BHOs proposals include actually taking over hospitals. - that is coming in Round X of the socialization bailout process. Don't be so impatient! ;D
This is all just one more step in the Fed gummint taking complete control over every significant aspect of our lives.
-
In answer to the question posed by the thread's title, I'd like to quote an old DI I fondly(?) remember:
WHAT?!? NO!! HELL NO!!! WHAT THE F***'S WRONG WITH YOU?!? ;D
-
There are two things that aggravate me the most about this whole thing:
1. The debate over this has been framed in such a way that the question of if we should even be doing this is not even open for discussion anymore. It has become inevitable that we are going to socialize our heath care system, and the only question being explored now is how exactly we are going to pay for it -- That is a travesty.
2. This is NOT about health care. This is 100% an insurance issue. The Dems have emotionalized this and labeled it as "health care reform", but it will do NOTHING to make health care in this country better. It will do NOTHING to make Americans healthier, or help us live longer lives. The only purpose this serves is to shift more power to the federal government..... Dont be fooled.... The purpose here is the same as for anything else they ever do in Washington...... Its all about control and dependency. They are playing the same game they always play.... hand out entitlements to secure votes and justify raising taxes.
We are truly living in times that we all thought we would never see.
-
Path posted "Thus far none of BHOs proposals include actually taking over hospitals. - that is coming in Round X of the socialization bailout process."
The failure of THIS reform will be the excuse used for nationalization of hospitals.
-
Path posted "Thus far none of BHOs proposals include actually taking over hospitals. - that is coming in Round X of the socialization bailout process."
The failure of THIS reform will be the excuse used for nationalization of hospitals.
Sure makes me happy that I retired and got out of healthcare while the getting was good. I could never work for BHO. No way, no how!!!
-
This is NOT about health care. This is 100% an insurance issue. The Dems have emotionalized this and labeled it as "health care reform", but it will do NOTHING to make health care in this country better. It will do NOTHING to make Americans healthier, or help us live longer lives. The only purpose this serves is to shift more power to the federal government..... Dont be fooled.... The purpose here is the same as for anything else they ever do in Washington...... Its all about control and dependency. They are playing the same game they always play.... hand out entitlements to secure votes and justify raising taxes.
Exactly right.
they lose paper records all the time... no real diffrence. Mine were sent out as a child by mistake.
Medical records can be life or death. take my niece for example, she is deathly algeric to opiates. if she is in a car wreck and they give her one, they would litterly only have about 30 seconds before she dead, there is nothing they could do to save her.
I'm sure you will be much safer, if you'll just give some more power to the; (pick an organization)