So much for health insurance reform

So much for health insurance reform

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 17th, 2009, 5:08 pm #1

Well once again politics, lies and corporate greed have won. Back when Obama was campaigning he said we should have an efficient not-for-profit single payer health insurance system like all other industrialized countries have. Well congressman like Max Baucus who are in the back pockets of the for-profit insurance industry wouldn't even consider that- so Obama settled for a voluntary "public option" system just for people who wanted a alternative to expensive private insurance- but now the millions of dollars the insurance industry has spend bribing congressmen and broadcasting lying TV ads has killed even that and insurance reform has become a farce so the private insurance companies can continue to maintain their highly profitable racket.
We have the best political system money can buy.
Reply
Like
Share

Brandon
Brandon

August 18th, 2009, 12:25 am #2

Just curious, did Obama actually say during the campaign that he was in favor of a "single payer" health care system?

I thought he said that if we were starting from scratch, that would be the way to go but since we weren't he was not in favor of it.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 18th, 2009, 1:12 am #3

I know that in the past he has advocated a single payer system, however I don't know if he did so in the recent presidential campaign.

I do know that many doctors and hospitals support the idea because it would tremendously reduce their paperwork dealing with one agency, one set of rules and one set of forms than the mishmash mess they have now- which is one reason how heathcare is so much more expensive than other countries. And it not like they are not familiar with dealing with the government since they do it all the time with Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Reply
Like
Share

Brandon
Brandon

August 18th, 2009, 2:27 am #4

Nat, are you prepared to pay more taxes to have the government insure everyone?
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 18th, 2009, 12:34 pm #5

Well this depends on who "everyone" is- not illegal aliens, who should send back. But I think its strange that people are so concern about taxes- but not about the huge amounts that they (or their employer- who ultimate deducts it from your wages by paying less) currently pay private for-profit insurance companies for coverage. When this is removed most people would actually wind up paying less overall. Look how much less people pay for Medicare compared to what they would pay a private company for comparable service.

What's more I think a government system would be fairer- unlike private companies who are always looking for ways to deny service in order to maximize their profit. I have heard some real horror stories about people being denies coverage for things they thought they had paid for. Currently when there are such disputes the patients is virtually powerless since their only option is an expensive court fight which insurance companies have much advantage.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

August 18th, 2009, 5:29 pm #6

Well once again politics, lies and corporate greed have won. Back when Obama was campaigning he said we should have an efficient not-for-profit single payer health insurance system like all other industrialized countries have. Well congressman like Max Baucus who are in the back pockets of the for-profit insurance industry wouldn't even consider that- so Obama settled for a voluntary "public option" system just for people who wanted a alternative to expensive private insurance- but now the millions of dollars the insurance industry has spend bribing congressmen and broadcasting lying TV ads has killed even that and insurance reform has become a farce so the private insurance companies can continue to maintain their highly profitable racket.
We have the best political system money can buy.
this isn't over. I suspect that Obama and his team are pausing to regroup, and that another run will be made at getting that single-payer govt-administered plan. I don't see this Administration as giving up so easily, but rather that they just switch strategies and attack from a different angle.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 18th, 2009, 6:00 pm #7

I don't think so Bob, from what I read Obama is stunned at the strength of the opposition- the insurance industry has poured $14.3 mil into congressional lobbying- and has essentially "brought Congress"- including even many leading Democrats. Senate Finance committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus (a Democrat) declared Single payer was "off the table" right from the start because it couldn't possibly pass Congress so there was no point in even discussing it. And when a group of doctors and nurses showed up and asked to speak in favor of single-payer he had them arrested and thrown out! There is even much opposition against the much milder "government option" proposal- which virtually every Republican is against. Add to this the strong and growing public opposition (even though based mostly on lies and distortions) and I think Obama will settle for what ever watered down bill he can get and "declare victory" even though it doesn't really do much.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

August 18th, 2009, 6:12 pm #8

A few months ago, Time magazine had an article about Obama's belief in behavioral strategies to affect chasnge. It detailed the many experts that have been appointed to high positions in the Administration who are staunch behaviorists . . academicians, authors . . . and laid out a general blueprint for how the Obama Administration plans to mold the Ametrican populace to accept the planned changes. The strategies range from mild (repeated public service announcements and prepared news articles, to "educate" and persuade the public), all the way to heavy taxation of undesired behaviors and outright banning of specific products and practices. The author of the article did not seem disdainful or disapproving of these tactics, but rather seemed impressed with how well thought-out the plans are and the expertise being brought to bear to execute them. It was obvious that this is a man (Obama) who is not easily deterred from getting what he wants.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 18th, 2009, 7:29 pm #9

Well signaling that the public option is no longer a "essential element" of his plan as he did over the weekend is sure not a way to show determination and strength to me! It just encourages the opposition- they are drawing blood- he's wounded and they are winning. And I don't know about all those experts he has but I feel the white house has done a lousy job handling this from the start. The first mistake was not having a firm plan to start with of what would be in the bill- so the opponents could take little proposals like paying doctors for end of life counciling that one house version had and turn this into "death panels" where the mean old government pulls the plug on grandma. In short he has lost control and let the opposition define the bill and they are defining it to scare the public right out of any support. You can see this by the polls- in the beginning there was strong public support for health insurance reform- now it's below 50% and falling- and totally because of lies and distortion Republicans and the insurance industry ads have been telling people about it.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

August 18th, 2009, 9:41 pm #10

Well once again politics, lies and corporate greed have won. Back when Obama was campaigning he said we should have an efficient not-for-profit single payer health insurance system like all other industrialized countries have. Well congressman like Max Baucus who are in the back pockets of the for-profit insurance industry wouldn't even consider that- so Obama settled for a voluntary "public option" system just for people who wanted a alternative to expensive private insurance- but now the millions of dollars the insurance industry has spend bribing congressmen and broadcasting lying TV ads has killed even that and insurance reform has become a farce so the private insurance companies can continue to maintain their highly profitable racket.
We have the best political system money can buy.
When I got home, I watched a discussion on FOX News re the health care proposals . . and they made a point that I think is very plausible. They noted the current move in Canada to add a private health care option, at least for those who can afford it. They predicted a two-tiered situation, where most people are covered by the govt-sponsored plan and get what they can get, and the well-heeled will purchase whatever care they desire. They speculated that this could be the situation in U.S. (not that there aren't disparities already).

Regardless what gets enacted, I see health care rationing in Americans' future. Several years ago, I read that Oregon did this with their Medicaid budget: They formed a panel of experts to weigh the cost vs. benefit of a long list of procedures. Then, they prioritized the list based upon getting the most benefits for the least cost. Then, they said, "This is how much money we have to spend, and we draw the line here on the list --- above the line are those procedures that Medicaid will pay for -- below the line are procedures we won't pay for."

Of course, private insurers do that . . . . . as well as public programs . . . now.

But, I see that thinking broadening to the entire health care financing system: rationing of care. The average person cannot afford many of these procedures, so unless insurance or the govt pays, they won't receive them. The question then is: Who receives care and who doesn't? Does an illegal alien whose procedure is high on the list get that procedure, while my lower-ranked procedure is denied? Does the 30 year-old dope addict who needs a liver transplant receive it, while the 68 y/o who needs a liver is denied because "he's too old"? And another question: Does the wealthy guy purchase an organ or procedure away from a poorer person? If not, why not? Will doctors and hospitals be prohibited from providing services to people who can pay more out of pocket for them?

Not like some of this stuff doesn't happen now, but will it get even worse? I wonder: How do European countries handle this? How do they look at limited dollars and say, "We will pay for this procedure for a person with these characteristics", and not have social upheaval against a medical caste system?
Reply
Share