dagblog - Comments for "Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive"

And right on cue Dr. Newman

Ellen — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:54:16 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

And right on cue Dr. Newman goes all "It doesn't work" on us. Whiner!

Don't the wealthy usually

Zeno_of_Citium — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:50:39 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

Don't the wealthy usually check the teeth of the slaves they buy, to make sure they're healthy before purchase?

Thanks for pointing out this

Jeff — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:48:56 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

Thanks for pointing out this silly article in TNR. What a joke. Tell me something else that I already know.

I'm a physician. If health care is a right, then the answer to the cost problem is actually quite simple, but our President is long on hope and short on audacity. Get rid of the bloodsuckers (for profit insurance companie), pool risk (mandatory minimal Medicare for all), and CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET to reasonable levels. Do we really need to be spending as much as the rest of the world combined on guns and bombs?

Every time Obama tells me it's health care spending that's destroying our economy, I throw up in my mouth.

WHAT ABOUT OUR OBSCENE DEFENSE SPENDING???

. Hey Oleeb . . . It's so

OldenGoldenDecoy — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:37:21 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

Hey Oleeb . . .

It's so damn easy for folks to throw out a line of bullpucky than to refute what 30,603 concerned citizen respondents surveyed as to what the most pressing problems are. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already realize.

Here, I'll use the picture section, it may be easier to digest for the lazy...

C. Figures, Tables, and Maps

And it's not all cut and dried nor black or white on how people feel related to the insurance through employment issue -- From the healthreform.gov/reports:

Health Insurance through Employment (pages 58-59)

Many Health Care Community Discussion participants were satisfied with the current employer-based insurance system. In Temple Hills, Maryland, they found, “The majority would like to stay with employer-based coverage only.” Participants from a meeting in Red Lion, Pennsylvania felt, “The employer should still be the primary source of health insurance but the government should be more aggressive against the health insurance companies and regulate costs.” At a breakfast meeting hosted by a health care technology company in Wayne, Pennsylvania, the participants “…also agreed… that eliminating employer-based coverage and converting to another system would be a cumbersome and complicated task. Conversely, some felt that the employer’s role in employee health should actually increase; that employers should become more involved in wellness and prevention programs because unhealthy staff lowers productivity.”

Yet, numerous Health Care Community Discussions expressed concerns about an employer-based health care system. The “Harold Street Yes We Can Group” from Houston, Texas, felt that an employer-based system is an outdated model. They summarized, “It’s based on a system developed by businesses post-WW II, as a means of competing for employees when wages were frozen. We are the only industrialized country that ties health insurance to employment.” Another group in Green Bay, Wisconsin, agreed with this point, “All felt that coverage by health insurance should not be dependent on employment; it’s exactly when one loses employment that he cannot afford to pay for health insurance.” A bipartisan group from Doylestown, Pennsylvania, forcefully recommended, “Employer-based coverage should be abolished or available only as an elective chosen by both the employees and employer. It should not be the main source of coverage.”

Several groups noted problems of an employer-based system when people lose their jobs. A diverse Health Care Community Discussion group in Tampa, Florida – including physicians, small business owners, retirees, and parents – were concerned that “if a person loses their job, they are penalized twice: first, in losing their job and then by losing their health insurance.” A house meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan, shared one family’s personal struggle: “With the loss of her job, [she] also lost all these benefits. While COBRA was available, she was not in a position to afford paying $1,100 -$1,200 a month to continue to carry those benefits, so her family went without health, dental, and vision insurance for just over four months.”

Other Health Care Community Discussions focused on how an employer-based system limits job mobility. A Madison, Wisconsin, gathering summarized that “one of the other problems with access is that it is so often tied to employment. Since it is now rare to remain with the same job for a lifetime, employers have little incentive to provide health care that covers pre-existing conditions or preventative care.” A conference call Health Care Community Discussion held by a home care and hospice organization in Connecticut recommended, “Portability of health insurance should be a main goal because people change jobs often. The new health care system should allow people to access health care regardless of whether they are working.”

Pages 58-59,

healthreform.gov/reports/ ... discussions/Part_III_Concerns.pdf

And Oleeb -- Thanks for your efforts.

~OGD~

. Oh brother . . . Was that

OldenGoldenDecoy — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:56:24 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

Oh brother . . .

Was that an April Fools piece or what? Talk about your inform to conform piece of twaddle out of the skull of some opining "expert"...

If anyone can make it past the 8 minute mark in the video blog from January 26 at the following link with Ezra Klein discussing health care with Jonathan Cohn then you're a bigger masochist than me.

Serious subject matter interspersed with self-deprecating giggling and genuine jackass genius of irreverent babble-speak... Allow yourself to at least get to the 2 minute mark and hang on as long as you dare.

Holy Sacramento ... I'd hate to witness these two when they reach their true middle-life crises.

~OGD~

Yes, I am sure. The idea

oleeb — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:35:09 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

Yes, I am sure.

The idea that "most" people are insured and therefore they are happy with the current system is not true. That line of argument has been manufactured by the insurance industry in the past couple of years. It's catchy, but little more than an attempt to divert attention from the real issue which is that even those who are insured now pay far too much to keep the insurance parasite alive and feeding off the host which is all of us. We can all have better health care if we abandon the current rotten system.

Despite the willingness of many who are insured to "play it safe" for themselves and let others suffer an uncertain fate their safety is short lived and their selfishness born of fear unjustified. And please note that their position on this changes instantly once unemployed or once they need treatement their insurance company refuses to pay for. The entire society will be better off when all citizens are covered and those who are fearful and hesitant now will pay less for better health care when we finally leave the current system behind where it belongs.

Our leaders' obligation is to the general good and the public interest and not just to a particular segment of society.

I could probably live with

miguelitoh2o — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:52:35 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

I could probably live with that. Do you think we can get the AMA to sign on to #2? ;)

It's just money; here's what

Ellen — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:40:29 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

It's just money; here's what we do:

1) Patients pay 50% of costs of hip and knee replacements,
2) Family physician pays 80% of cost of his diabetic patient's amputation, and
3) Decedent's estate pays 75% of cost of last 30 days of hospital stay and in-hospital treatment (in for less than a week, no charge).

No cutting edge treatments (or rebranded drugs) for middle class or poor people until wealthy (who will pay out-of-pocket) have proved they work. And nothing for quality of life (you weren't promised a rose garden).

So, if you need the cheapest

dickday — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:09:55 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

So, if you need the cheapest and best "reform" it's clear that some form of the Medicare for All bill sponsored by Rep. John Conyers is the route to take. It provides the best coverage for all our citizens--not some---ALL our citizens..."

Good post. I have always respected Conyers. For decades the same way I respect our new VP. Decades attempting TO DO THE RIGHT THING. Ha

We now have a budget or will shortly that takes into consideration HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
spent annually on two wars. w just ignored it in his budget. Or his sycophant's budget.

The real costs of treating the uninsured are skipped over. the ER, where miracles occur.

Good post.

. . . our "leaders" . .

Ellen — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:13:58 +0000

In reply to Another Smart Guy in DC figures out Healthcare is Expensive

. . . our "leaders" . . . need to start . . . representing the interests of the people who elected them instead of the people who wine and dine them.

Are you sure they're not representing the voters' interests?

Most voters are insured through employer plans or Medicare. I suspect they like it just the way it is -- or, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that the vague and possibly very expensive alternative just doesn't float their boats.