Civility and Cooperation

[BeanCounter]

Liberals interpret this as Laydown and Accept what we say.

True or False?

In order to gain Republican cooperation what would have to be changed in the health bill?


Oh, and Ernie, please stay out of this.

[Black Mamba]

Simplify?

It runs more pages than War and Peace, has nearly five times as many words as the Torah, and its tables of contents alone run far longer than this story.

The House health care bill unveiled Thursday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. With an estimated 10-year cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word. .

And for some members, that may not be enough.

A “robust” public option can’t be found in the bill. Neither can the word “doctor” – save for a few references to degrees. No “cost curve” is bent. No “blue pill” is dispensed.

“Death” and “taxes” are both in there, but “death panel” is not.

The text defines dozens of words and phrases, including “family” (“an individual and . . . the individual’s dependents”), “health insurance coverage,” “exchange-eligible individual” and “Indian.”

And for those who cry “read the bill,” beware. There are plenty of paragraphs like this one:

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.

The section deals with “incorporating productivity improvements into market basket updates that do not already incorporate such improvements,” if that helps.

Optimistic lawmakers say it could take a week just to get through the bill’s text.

“I’ll have to call an emergency meeting of my staff and drop the customary procedure of me reading and my staff not reading,” joked House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), who famously told filmmaker Michael Moore that lawmakers “don’t read most of the bills.”

“It’s one thing to read it,” said Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), a lawyer who voted against the first version of the bill on its way through the Energy and Commerce Committee. “It’s another thing to understand it when it’s written in legalese.”

When given the bill’s dimensions, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) noted that some members are faster readers than others.

“That’s one afternoon for Barney Frank,” he said.

Republicans aide said a print-out of the bill weighs more than 19 pounds and stands nearly nine inches tall.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry, 34 years old and a few inches taller than 5 feet, said the bill could act as a ”booster seat.”

Democrats say the essence of the bill isn’t much different from the three sister bills they moved through committees this summer, which came in around 1,000 pages.

If you read those, they say, you pretty much know what’s in this one.

“It’s almost a complete certainty that we have already discussed and debated almost every element that’s in this bill,” said Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)

McHenry took issue with the notion that the 2,000-page bill hasn’t changed much from the earlier, 1,000-page versions. To prove the point, he pulled out a Democratic-written summary of the changes.

All eight pages of them.

Asked why the House will vote on the roughly 400,000-word bill in a week when it takes a congregation a year to read the 80,000-word Torah at a synagogue, Rothman, who is Jewish, exhibited the wisdom of a Talmudic scholar.

“It only takes a year because you read one section a week,” he said.

But Republican Rep. Joe Barton, who is Texan, said the bill is “about four reams of paper” that add up to the American public “getting reamed.”

[Excaliber]

Discussing a health bill is an important issue. Censoring who can and can't comment on it is counter productive.

Liberals interpret this as Laydown and Accept what we say.

Like the President recently said, if you got any ideas, let's hear them. Sounds simple enough to me.

[Ron61]

It runs more pages than War and Peace, has nearly five times as many words as the Torah, and its tables of contents alone run far longer than this story.

I agree with this statement. I have spent weeks reading just different portions of the darn thing and it is mostly pork when you get through all the rambling phrases and paragraphs.

Ernie,

Not to worry though, I just saw in today's paper that California is going to pass their own State version of the bill as they don't think the Federal one is going to go. California has enough Democrats to pass the bill, but Arnold said he would veto it and I don't think they can get enough votes to override his veto. And like the Federal bill, it will mostly cost people more in taxes and money than any good they will get from it.

Ron

[BeanCounter]

Ernie,

I asked what Republicans would have to see in order to gain their cooperation. That kinda leaves you out. Besides I want to hear what the conservative side has to say without any of your snide comments or verbosity. After reading your comments on derivatives I don't think I can take any more of your pomposity on difficult subjects when you don't even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Discussing a health bill is an important issue. Censoring who can and can't comment on it is counter productive.



Like the President recently said, if you got any ideas, let's hear them. Sounds simple enough to me.

Simple answer. He's a hippocrit. He's been told over and over, but he won't listen.

[Excaliber]

With the increasing unemployment picture more and more people will be loosing access to health care. Inevitably they will end up using Federal monies one way or another for health care, in many case after they have gone broke.

The steady rise in the cost of health care will continue unabated regardless of the economic picture. You can pay now or pay later, but we will pay.

Liberals interpret this as Laydown and Accept what we say.

True or False?

To answer the question, by the way, it's false. It's remarkable to me that the Republicans still don't get it, the knee jerk reaction remains "No". Much like the suggestion here that I stay out of this thread. They don't even want to entertain possible solutions.

[Excaliber]

I can take any more of your pomposity on difficult subjects

Yeah same here Bernie, I don't care for personal attacks, so just keep out of it.

[Tommy]

In answer to the orginal question, I'd like to see something that would likely keep escalating health care costs from affecting me via things like higher premiums, higher cost sharing and/or higher provider charges. Examples of actions that would do that include tort reform and changes in the fee-for-services system currently used. .... As an aside, I fail to see what segment of the Democratic Party base is opposed to tort reform. Other than trial lawyers (and the politicians who take their contributions), who is opposed to this?

[Bobcat]

Would love to see restrictions on insurance companies that prohibit them from writing across state lines removed . Also , some type of a " menu " that will allow you to buy insurance tailored to you .... don`t need pregnancy benefits etc . Tort reform is an absolute must !

[Dan40]

A reasoned, logical, measured approach.
A bipartisan agreement on what are the top 5 problems. What are the top 10?

Even if only the top 2 problems could be agreed, fix them. PASS THAT, then move on to the next. Its a hundred year old problem. It is never going to be fixed in one fell swoop by either party. Step by step, an agreement or a compromise PASSED. Then on to the next. Everybody gets credit, everybody gets the benefits.

Any other approach by any party in power will end up the way we are today.

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by Dan40

A reasoned, logical, measured approach.
A bipartisan agreement on what are the top 5 problems. What are the top 10?

Even if only the top 2 problems could be agreed, fix them. PASS THAT, then move on to the next. Its a hundred year old problem. It is never going to be fixed in one fell swoop by either party. Step by step, an agreement or a compromise PASSED. Then on to the next. Everybody gets credit, everybody gets the benefits.

Any other approach by any party in power will end up the way we are today.

I agree with your sentiment. But according to a documentary I heard, the problem basically goes back to WW II. America is the only major country where health care is largely provided by employers. That became popular during WW II when wage controls forced employers to use lucrative fringe benefits to compete for workers. A short while later, the IRS institutionalized the situation by ruling that health insurance benefits are not taxable as income. Those two semi-random acts put in motion the current system. Since then, employees have sought out tax free health care benefits as preferable to taxed income. If that one thing were changed, every worker would see insurance premiums as something bought with his own money rather than the employer's money. That would change a lot about how people view and use health insurance.

[Black Mamba]

Just a hopefully simple question.

My mother and father retired to Canada, Vancouver Island to be exact. Recently my mom had a stroke and spent a bit over a week in the hospital. Luckily only her speech was afflicted and she's now going to speech therapy once a week. My father has suffered 2 heart attacks, both ending in prolonged hospital stays, angioplasty, a stint, and a boatload of meds. Total cost to them: zippo. HOWEVER, Canadian taxes are something you can easily choke on but I guess they make up for it with these little excursions to the hospital.

My question is I've always had private insurance through the union, both growing up and now, so if I lost my coverage who would I turn to and what would it cost me (besides or after Cobra... and who names a health care program after a snake anyways?) do I get medicare or medicaid at no cost to me?

[Excaliber]

Employers money for health care is working well in Hawaii, so we have an example where it CAN work, and work well. I've heard that much of the current debatable health bill is modeled after Hawaii. The HMO's and various plans there are thriving, the competition is keen, for that employer dollar. EVERY worker (those over 20 hours a week) has health coverage.

Simple solution and ONE thing: Require business' to provide health coverage to employees, done.

[BeanCounter]

Here is a group of suggestions that I have found to be the best I've heard.

REFORM #1: Sell Insurance Across State Lines

FACT: State mandates drive up costs

• Health insurance for a 25-year-old male in New Jersey costs nearly six times what it does in Kentucky, largely because of state mandates.

• Introducing choice and competition reduces business overhead. Businesses could use these savings to raise wages or hire workers. This stimulates the economy without spending a dime of federal money.

FACT: Interstate competition optimizes legislative oversight

• Competing incentives push states toward quality and efficiency. Increased regulation protects patients. Decreased regulation attracts business. If fifty state legislatures compete to balance patient protection against affordability, effective and efficient oversight will emerge.

• The alternative is to have federal mandates—giving Americans no choice and leaving the political class with no competition.

We the People provide oversight

• Independent watchdog groups could rate states and insurance companies on cost and patient satisfaction. This sifts the good from the bad.

• Armed with knowledge and incentive, Americans would push insurers to offer better, cheaper products tailored to their specific needs.

CONCLUSION: Allowing businesses to purchase insurance across state lines empowers We the People, not Washington, and does not cost a dime. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer repeatedly questioned President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod about this reform. Axelrod offered no reason why it would not work. This measure should enjoy bipartisan support.

REFORM #2: Let individuals purchase health insurance with pre-tax dollars

FACT: Insurance companies serve businesses, not patients

• Businesses purchase employee health insurance with pre-tax dollars. Individuals purchase insurance with post-tax dollars making their insurance far more expensive.

• This reform lets patients buy products that meet their needs and makes insurers more accountable to patients.

CONCLUSION: This reform empowers We the People and requires no federal spending.

REFORM #3: Encourage Health Care Savings Accounts (HSAs)

FACT: HSAs reduce health care costs without rationing (cutting Medicare)

• No one spends someone else’s money as wisely as they spend their own. This is the fundamental problem of any third-party-payer system (whether insurance companies or government).

• When a third party pays, nobody cares about cost. HSAs encourage patients to ask:

1) How much does this cost?

2) Do I need this test or medication?

• HSAs let patients control their own money, decreasing health care spending by 13%.

• This “bends the curve” without rationing care. During 2005 and 2006, traditional insurance rose 7.3% annually. Lower cost / higher deductable plans combined with HSAs rose only 2.7% annually.

FACT: HSAs encourage “young invincibles” to buy insurance

• Allowing patients to transfer unused, pre-tax HSA dollars to retirement accounts gives “young invincibles” a reason to purchase health insurance.

• Washington’s “reform” forces younger / healthier Americans to buy insurance under threat of fines or prison.

CONCLUSION: By addressing a fundamental problem of today’s health care system, this reform “bends the curve” without rationing care. Again, it empowers We the People without plunging America further into debt.

REFORM #4: End abusive medical litigation

FACT: Frivolous litigation drives physicians out of medicine

• Tremendous upheaval occurs when physicians are accused of malpractice—even when acquitted. Bringing tens of millions of new patients into the system requires more physicians, not fewer.

FACT: Frivolous litigation reform lowers cost and improves access to care

• Americans spend approximately $124 billion every year because physicians practice defensive medicine. Frivolous lawsuit reform could reduce healthcare spending by approximately $70 billion annually.

• In 2002, 62% of counties in Texas did not have an obstetrician. After passing frivolous medical litigation reform in 2003, nearly 600 obstetricians returned to practice medicine in the Lone Star State by 2007.

CONCLUSION: Ending abusive litigation “bends the curve” without rationing care. Physicians for Reform outlines medical litigation reform that reduces frivolous suits, expedites legitimate suits, and holds negligent physicians accountable. (www.PhysiciansForReform.org)

REFORM #5: Covering the uninsured

FACT: We can insure the uninsured without expanding American debt

• Approximately 25% of patients who visit the emergency room where I work do not have health care coverage. Clearly something must be done.

• A system of tax credits can help the uninsured purchase coverage. This would cost approximately $80 billion annually. Reforms #1 through #4 will save approximately $120 billion annually, covering the uninsured. Healthcare reform must be viewed in terms of American debt, not federal deficit.

Getting Health Care Reform Right

Scott Brown's election to the Senate gives the nation a chance to slow down and rethink health care reform. It gives our lawmakers an opportunity to keep the patient at the center of American health care. And to do this we must:

- Scrap the current legislation.
- Enact the five reforms listed above.
- Pass each reform separately, one bill every four months.
- Limit each bill to 50 pages.
- Let each bill pass or fail on its own merits—no pork, no pay-offs.
- Make final language available to the public for at least 7 days prior to voting.

We the People want patient-centered, fiscally responsible reform. Change for the sake of change is not enough. Massachusetts voters made this clear. Washington, listen and give Americans real solutions. Only then will we support you at the ballot box.

C. L. Gray, M.D is president of Physicians for Reform. For more visit PhysiciansForReform.org

[computerworks]

Those are all good...and known.

I think if he adds a solution to pre-existing condition issue, it works for me.

He has to drop the "We the People" schtick though, to be taken seriously.

[Excaliber]

There's another good reason to not want to live in Texas! Tort reform is not nearly as simple as the Dr. from Texas would have us believe. The Texas reform primarily protects the big players, corporations and those with a huge salary (money). It prohibits the "regular guy on the street" from bringing a legitimate case to trial because lawyers simply don't see any return on investment. I think it also overstates (hyperbole) the percent of "frivilous" lawsuits. Sure more doctors are coming into the state as a result of lower malpractice costs, but that does not mean the quality of medical care has increased. It's likely it has DECREASED as a result, it's likely there are MORE deaths from doctor screwups now than there was before. But fewer people to do anything about it. Has this Texas tort reform actually lowered the cost of health care? I seriously doubt it.

We do need some kind of tort reform, but I don't think the Texas model is a good example for the Nation. This is an incredibly complex issue by itself, outside of any other reforms. Taking on the lawyers is equivelant to taking on and breaking up Unions, they are THAT big. Pass into law Tort reform in FOUR months? Never happen, four years, maybe...

[Excaliber]

Insurance across state lines will help, but I don't see a significant reduction in prices for insurance or health care costs as a result.

The fundamentals will not change. Actuary tables of death will still be used by the insurance companies. If you are a risky patient, your premium is still going to be out of reach. "Encouraging" young folks to buy insurance doesn't mean it will happen, why should they buy it just because it's cheaper? It's still money out of their pocket for something they don't think they need. When you see terms like "encouraged" to do something, it means the idea has no teeth, no enforcement, aint gonna happen.

[Excaliber]

He's a hippocrit.

Hey azzhole, care to make a public apology for your personal attack?

[computerworks]

RELAX...

You should apologize to Anthony...he was calling Obama a hypocrite, not you

Anthony should apologize for his spelling.