You know its bad when Howard Dean bashes ObamaCare

[ericire12]

WOW!  

Strange turn around, since Dean was very outspoken about his support for ObamaCare up to this point..... Under the bus indeed!

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/27/howard-dean-stop-obamacare-now/

Howard Dean: Stop ObamaCare now

    DEAN: There is something worse than passing no bill. This bill isn’t very strong. In fact, the only piece of reform left in it is the public option. The insurance reform is gone, essentially, because what they did is they have guaranteed issue — they have to, er, the insurance company has to ensure you — the problem is they don’t have community rating any more. They, they, they, the Senate bill, I think, charges three or four times as much for sick people as they do for healthy people, and the House bill is twice as much. …

    DEAN: You know, we did this ten or fifteen years ago in Vermont, and you can charge 20% more for your most expensive clients as you can for your cheapest clients, and that’s it. Now if you can afford to buy health insurance if it’s 20% above the bottom price, but you can’t afford to buy health insurance if it’s twice as much or three times as much, so guaranteed issue doesn’t do you any good unless you have real community rating. Real community rating doesn’t exist in either the House or the Senate bill, so the old argument, which I used to make, was that we ought to pass this thing just to get the insurance reform. There isn’t any insurance reform left in this bill to speak of. …

    DEAN: You know, what this is is a giant bail-out. This is a bail-out that makes AIG look cheap. Sixty billion dollars a year go to the insurance companies under this bill. Now if we can get a public option, I think that’s OK, but if you don’t have a public option, why would you want to stick the taxpayers with yet another bail-out? They bailed out the banks, they bailed out AIG. This is a trillion-dollar bailout. …

    DEAN: I would vote with Bernie Sanders. I would vote to kill this bill if it does not have a public option, because that is doing harm to the nation. It’s not just, “Well, there’s some of this” –

    PRESS: Yeah.

    DEAN: This is a harmful bill to the nation without a public option, because it’s going to take trillions of dollars, billions, well, trillions over several decades from our kids. The Republicans are right about the rhetoric of the bill. But if you get reform, you can fix it. If you don’t get reform, you got the system that we have today, you are gradually going to start uninsuring people, because we are not going to be able to maintain this system. This system does nothing to control costs.

*Video at link

[fightingquaker13]

And Dean is right. Either the government acts as an insurer (not care giver, but insurer) to those who don't have/can't get insurance, or it just subsidizes the corporate system that gives us HMOs and all their bureacracy, and denies care to those who need it because of pre-existing conditions. If the latter is the case, stay the heck out of insurance reform, because I don't want my tax dollars (and worse yet, federal protection from lawsuits) going to insurance companies. To me the logical solution to what IS a problem confronting both individuals and small business, is a federal version of Blue Cross. It takes all comers, pay what your income says you can afford, acts as a PPO rather than an HMO, and take it or leave it. Buy private if you want. But alas the good folks in Hartford and on the Hill won't let that happen.
FQ13

[Hazcat]

Because your proposal will kill private health care and cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars.

We need tort reform first, then lets take a look. (after 4 or 5 years)

[ericire12]

Because your proposal will kill private health care and cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars.

We need tort reform first, then lets take a look. (after 4 or 5 years)

+1

Haz, if you can teach that Shit for brains to use a litter box it would be much appreciated.

The solvency for the Healthcare issue is two fold:

1. Remove the state-to-state restrictions on health insurance and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines..... This will instantaneously make insurance more affordable and attainable and it wont cost the tax payers a dime.

2. Tort reform.... This will be a longer drawn out process, but it will eliminate the cost of defensive medicine and and save Americans gobs and gobs of money.   

[fightingquaker13]

Because your proposal will kill private health care and cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars.

We need tort reform first, then lets take a look. (after 4 or 5 years)

The problem with tort reform is this. It removes accountability. If your insurer or your MD screws you over, there has to be a way to hold them to account or there is no reason for them to do right. Lawsuits are sloppy, expensive and random, but they do the job. If we take those off the table, or drastically limit them, something needs to take their place. This would require a serious regulatory board of some sort. These boards exist, but are fairly lax and sloppy. If you are willing to give government the power to second guess doctors and hammer insureres, it could work. But in both csaes, providing a serious disincentive to wrong doing requires a price tag. Its just like crime. If you want to deter theft, you pay for cops, courts and prisons. Nothing's free.
FQ

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

Between out of control jury awards and unnecessary tests performed for CYA tort reform would reduce costs ~ 30%.  Yes of course, there needs to be recourse for 'bad medicine' but it needs to be within reason.

Second (and thanks for reminding me E12) open the insurers across state lines.

Between these two I have heard of possible 40 -50% reductions in cost.

That's real reform and it won't spend our great grand children into poverty!

[fightingquaker13]

Between out of control jury awards and unnecessary tests performed for CYA tort reform would reduce costs ~ 30%.  Yes of course, there needs to be recourse for 'bad medicine' but it needs to be within reason.

Second (and thanks for reminding me E12) open the insurers across state lines.

Between these two I have heard of possible 40 -50% reductions in cost.

That's real reform and it won't spend our great grand children into poverty!

Haz
I agree with you, I do think lawsuits are a stupid nd ineffecient way to regulate heathcare (as I stated). My fear is that most of us can't, in reality, shop for insurers. We're stuck with what our employers give us, or we're screwed because we can't afford private. Likewise, when we  go to the doctor, we aren't really informed customers as we don't have the necessary knowledge. This means we must trust both the insurers and the docs. I am a realist. I trust no one who has a profit motive to screw me. There must be a serious regulatory authority to step in the place of lawsuits. I agree that fear of such suits drives up the price of health care, and would like to see it changed. Just understand, having Big Brother loking over your docs shoulder may or may not significantly reduce CYA tests and the like (it will if its done right, with review boards made up of practioners, but how often does that happen?). Lawyers do a pretty good job of policing their own, doctors haven't yet. Maybe they could and that would be a good thing.
My other concern is this. You seem to assume that insurers would lower rates to reflect the reduced cost of no lawsuits. Why would they? We are pretty much a captive audience, and just like oil companies don't build more refineries because its cheaper for them to just keep raising the price of gas, I don't see Humana reducing its rates to pass on the savings if they are reasonably sure their competitors won't either. I am all in favor a more efficent system. Hell, my doc has no malpractice insurance and I have to sign a form saying I know that, every visit. She shouldn't have to do this. I just think a "blame the lawyers, ignore the insurance companies approach is a bad idea".
FQ
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Haz
I agree with you, I do think lawsuits are a stupid nd ineffecient way to regulate heathcare (as I stated). My fear is that most of us can't, in reality, shop for insurers. We're stuck with what our employers give us, or we're screwed because we can't afford private. Likewise, when we  go to the doctor, we aren't really informed customers as we don't have the necessary knowledge. This means we must trust both the insurers and the docs. I am a realist. I trust no one who has a profit motive to screw me. There must be a serious regulatory authority to step in the place of lawsuits. I agree that fear of such suits drives up the price of health care, and would like to see it changed. Just understand, having Big Brother loking over your docs shoulder may or may not significantly reduce CYA tests and the like (it will if its done right, with review boards made up of practioners, but how often does that happen?). Lawyers do a pretty good job of policing their own, doctors haven't yet. Maybe they could and that would be a good thing.
My other concern is this. You seem to assume that insurers would lower rates to reflect the reduced cost of no lawsuits. Why would they? We are pretty much a captive audience, and just like oil companies don't build more refineries because its cheaper for them to just keep raising the price of gas, I don't see Humana reducing its rates to pass on the savings if they are reasonably sure their competitors won't either. I am all in favor a more efficent system. Hell, my doc has no malpractice insurance and I have to sign a form saying I know that, every visit. She shouldn't have to do this. I just think a "blame the lawyers, ignore the insurance companies approach is a bad idea".
FQ
FQ13

That's because of the regulation Haz mentioned that prohibits insurers from crossing state lines.
The last 2 places I worked are a good example, at one, a small shop located in NH, the individual plan was around $50 a week because they could only use insurers that were OKed by NH.
The other place had plants in several states they used Blue Cross of Minnesota throughout the entire corporation, the individual plan included eyecare , had MUCH better Bennies and was half the price.
It's no differant than Ca's approved gun list, the ones that pay the most get to play in that state.
Regulation is evil.

[Hazcat]

FQ,

If there is good profit to be made at lower costs and with reasonable investment risks I think you will see more competition and tis will drive rates down under the 'new' system.

Am I CERTAIN this will happen?

No, that is why I say get the fixes I mentioned in place for a while then take another look. "Trust but verify".

[twyacht]

Always best to keep "Dr. Dean" in perspective.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obhbAr-No1Y&feature=related

He doesn't even like cats!!!!