Kill the bill and Start Over

[Trinity]

The President's aides are hinting that Mr. Obama may want to do another primetime address on healthcare

Heathcare is not a popularity contest. It is not an excuse to give a nice teleprompter speech to see if you can "shine" some people on with your campaign personality saying all the things that everyone agrees on but failing to shed any light on all the things we don't agree on.

Why was the President traveling around doing townhalls answering questions if he doesn't have a bill and neither does congress?...how is he answering questions? He can't assure anyone of anything.

Why doesn't the president put his money where is mouth is and have open door meetings with the committees of congress with cameras in the room where they hash out healthcare. (Obama criticized Hillary for having closed door meetings)

I'd love to see the President, the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republicans marking up the bill. Who wouldn't love to see line by line, section by section discussion of this healthcare bill? ....the amendments explained and why we need them...and the legislators being held responsible for their legislation.

oh and we need the CBO in there. Saying "Nope. Still increases the deficit." "Nope. Millions of uninsured still not covered."

Bottom line. The American people are reading the bills in the House and Senate and we aren't going to be "shined on" anymore. The teleprompter won't work. We don't want higher taxes or premiums. We don't want higher deficits. We don't want less access to care or changes in our healthcare plans. We don't want long lines, long waits or rationed care.

We don't need reform for the sake of reform. We need to fix what's wrong - not mess up what's right.

We need to Kill the Bill and Start Over. I agree with the following article:

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough

Even if the public option is excised, the healthcare bill under consideration by Congress would still impose a heavy blanket of federal regulation on every aspect of insurance and healthcare itself.
The government would determine what interventions “work” and are included in plans’ coverage. This would include a judgment on what is cost effective—does a treatment justify its cost? The government would put a monetary value on the number of years a patient’s life is extended or improved. Would everyone’s life be valued the same?

The government would mandate enrollment practices; regulate how premiums are determined; specify what co-payments can be collected; and dictate how much of the premium would have to be paid out for claims. The government would switch money back and forth among plans (“risk adjustment”) to compensate plans that cover a larger share of sick people.

It would impose “uniform marketing standards” on insurance plans and regulate how plan documents are written to ensure that they use “plain language.” Although the evolving legislation manifestly fails this test itself, it requires insurers to use language that is “clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.” To help the hapless insurers in this task, the newly created health choices commissioner would “develop and issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.”

The newly created health choices commissioner would take bids from plans, negotiate with them, and enter into contracts with selected plans. This opens the way for undefined and unchecked informal regulation of plans, including, for instance, the number, type, and location of providers included in a plan, and how they are paid. The government would be able to use the contract mechanism to introduce any requirement it wanted, including social policies in favor at any particular time.

Why not start with increasing competition by opening competition across states?

Why not address tort reform?

Why not start with banning denial of coverage for preconditions?

 

[Industrialsize]

and I don't agree with a word of it. We need to kill all the LIES and DISTORTIONS and MISINFORMATION that the right is spewing.

 

[Trinity]

and I don't agree with a word of it. We need to kill all the LIES and DISTORTIONS and MISINFORMATION that the right is spewing.

I agree with the article. I believe the lies, distortions and misinformation are coming from the left.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well, it's official. Trinity is directionally challenged.

 

[Industrialsize]

I agree with the article. I believe the lies, distortions and misinformation are coming from the left.

2 words, DEATH PANELS. If you believe those are in ANY bill you need to take an alzheimer's test.

 

[Trinity]

President Obama promises that, if health-care reform is enacted, people will be able to keep their current coverage.

"I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening: If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan," he said Saturday in a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo., much as he said Friday in Belgrade, Mont., and earlier in the week in Portsmouth, N.H.

However, under legislation drafted by House and Senate Democrats, that would not necessarily be true.
Legislation written by three House committees and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions would allow eligible employers to move workers into a new marketplace for insurance, where they could choose from various coverage options.

/The legislation could also prompt some employers to drop coverage, congressional budget analysts say.

President's Coverage Promise Is No Keeper


By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 17, 2009
​

 

[houtx48]

the earth is rising, the earth is rising. you are going to hit your head on the sky.

 

[Trinity]

the earth is rising, the earth is rising. you are going to hit your head on the sky.

Wow, now the Washington Post is chicken little. Anyone who tells the truth...the real facts in the healthcare discussion and it disagrees with Obama is either a liar or chicken little.

In starting over on the bill, they should address the need for more doctors.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No, Trinity... you are Chicken Little.

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Well I thought the Kill Bill movies were excellent! What do you think? :smile: Although Uma Thurman's feet were absolutely hideous! uke:

 

[Zeuhl34]

I'd actually support killing the bill and starting over and ditching any attempt at "bipartisanship." This is one issue where I feel it would be best for the Dems to go it alone, pass the best bill possible, and potentially lose seats in the next election (though that's easy for me to say, as my ass isn't the one up for reelection).

I was listening to NPR at where I work today, and Bob Dole was on as a guest. He suggested that it may have been better if Obama had told the leaders in Congress what he wanted and have them try to get as much of it as possible, as opposed to having Congress hash everything out themselves. However, he said that he'd like to see more bipartisanship, saying that he would like to see about a dozen Republican senators vote for the bill.

 

[b.c.]

The kill the bill and start over argument is a stall tactic. They figure it'd take a year or two to get it rolling again (if ever).

Why not come to agreement on the workable parts of the bill and stop spreading misinformation (like that b.s. about the bill prompting employers to drop coverage)?

What employers? You mean the ones like this one? (see article)

Businesses fight plans to ensure health care - USATODAY.com

 

[Trinity]

The kill the bill and start over argument is a stall tactic. They figure it'd take a year or two to get it rolling again (if ever).

Why not come to agreement on the workable parts of the bill and stop spreading misinformation (like that b.s. about the bill prompting employers to drop coverage)?

What employers? You mean the ones like this one? (see article)

Businesses fight plans to ensure health care - USATODAY.com

What if the restaurant owner decided to forego the headache and cancel health insurance and take the penalty? It's probably cheaper than hiring an accountant and less trouble.

It's not misinformation. As the Washington Post pointed out, it is a valid concern.

Coming to agreement on workable parts of the bills out there would have been an option but the Left and the Democrats including the President refuse to admit their traps in the bills.

Obama and others are on record as approving of the elimination of private employer health insurance. Despite what they are saying publicly now to get their way, it very much appears that they are setting up a system to do just that.

If they truly want to deal...

Why haven't they allowed the Republican amendments?

Why not explicitly state in the bills that federal tax dollars will not be allowed for abortion?

Why not explicitly state that no illegal immigrants can be covered? Not whine its not in the bill...explicitly state in the bill it CAN NOT HAPPEN.

Why does the federal government have to run practically every aspect of the health insurance system? Why can't the federal government allow for more competition by opening insurance across state lines?

Why can't they address tort reform?

Why can't they ban denial of coverage for preconditions?

Why can't they set up incentives for positive health outcomes?

Why does every bill add to the deficit when Obama said it wouldn't?

Why does the legislation do this:

The newly created health choices commissioner would take bids from plans, negotiate with them, and enter into contracts with selected plans. This opens the way for undefined and unchecked informal regulation of plans, including, for instance, the number, type, and location of providers included in a plan, and how they are paid. The government would be able to use the contract mechanism to introduce any requirement it wanted, including social policies in favor at any particular time.

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough


If the Democrats refuse to admit that they have an agenda wrapped up in their plan and refuse to eliminate the "traps" from the bill that people are opposed to then there can be no compromise.

That's why people are actually asking for a blank slate. This is our healthcare. The President and Congress will have their healthcare...the rest of us aren't going to be fooled with a bunch of empty promises.

 

[javyn]

I'd rather just kill all the uninsured than the bill. That would be more fun, and the result would be the same in the end.

 

[Industrialsize]

I'd rather just kill all the uninsured than the bill. That would be more fun, and the result would be the same in the end.

My brother is 57 and uninsured because he can't Afford insurance. Do you want to kill my brother?

 

[vince]

I agree with the article. I believe the lies, distortions and misinformation.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[FuzzyKen]

There is no simple answer on this one.

The main problem is that there is also a great deal of misinformation and advertising going on to not only defeat the current health care plan, but to defeat any attempt at health care reform period and in general.

In politics, the sad part these days is that to get to the bottom we need to follow the money. If health care were to be reformed who would lose money and who would gain money.

Anyone thinking that the advertising currently taking place and sponsored by various PACs or lobbiest organizations is representing the people is sadly very misinformed.

#1. For the sake of argument let's assume that we came up with and acted a good workable single pay plan for the entire nation. For now, let's not argue quality, let's just say that it happened and assume it works fantasy or not.

a. Private medical insurance carriers and HMO's would be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. The billions of dollars fed into these private organizations and the percs that the CEO's of these organizations receive which are all paid by the premiums of the subscribers would also cease to exist with that same signature.

b. Hospitals are now going to have one single source of revenue. No excuses, provide care or you are finished. No double billing, no padding of bills, routine audits to hold down padding and unrealistic costs. The gravy train for hospitals would be officially over.

c. Pharmaceutical giants can scam the public and a private insurance carrier right and left. If we go to a single pay system, OOOOPS! That is over. There is no more brand name and no more generic drug. A single pay plan also eliminates the advertising by drug companies aimed at the consumer. The drugs would again be marketed to the MD's writing the prescriptions. They are all under this different system generic drugs. . . If we falsely charge for drugs that were in fact developed under Government Grants (AZT being one of these from the past) we could get caught couldn't we. We wouldn't want that now would we.

d. If we had a single pay system that ran well, (again theory, because we don't have it yet) who would in fact profit from it. We would eliminate the hidden tax burden shifted to governmental M.I.S.P. programs. The general population would benefit because under this there is no descrimination over pre-existing conditions.

e. Basically we have been misinformed by those stating that this would create a huge, cumbersome and wasteful bureaucracy. We in fact could save money in that the main framework for the new health care system is already in place and has been for decades. They call this system "Medicare". What we simply do is to take all of the money and lump it into medicare covering every American Citizen under Medicare from birth till death and leave it at that. Simple, direct, and without the bungling of private industry and the inequities of the system Medicare could easily be expanded to cover every American.

In order for a system regulated by private carriers to work, it would have to be so heavily watched and regulated that it would not be able to function.

Our system is broken. There is no way to fix the existing system at all. Corporate executives and auditors are never going to be able to place patient care above profit margins. Both the executives and the auditors are by their very nature responsible to stockholders, and responsible to these individuals means that if we don't show a profit we don't keep our jobs. Any system relying on private industry or a total for profit system will never work and be equitable in any manner.

Sadly, I also believe that the current proposal needs to be scrapped simply because it depends on things that are impossible to take place.

 

[Trinity]

Fixed that for ya.

If you pointed out a lie, distortion or misinformation in the article and provided support for it, perhaps you'd be providing some substance. As it stands, you are merely rewording my sentence inaccurately.

 

[deleted15807]

It was a good few days without the Fox News feed :smile:

 

[b.c.]

There is no simple answer on this one.

The main problem is that there is also a great deal of misinformation and advertising going on to not only defeat the current health care plan, but to defeat any attempt at health care reform period and in general.

In politics, the sad part these days is that to get to the bottom we need to follow the money. If health care were to be reformed who would lose money and who would gain money.

Anyone thinking that the advertising currently taking place and sponsored by various PACs or lobbiest organizations is representing the people is sadly very misinformed.

#1. For the sake of argument let's assume that we came up with and acted a good workable single pay plan for the entire nation. For now, let's not argue quality, let's just say that it happened and assume it works fantasy or not.

a. Private medical insurance carriers and HMO's would be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. The billions of dollars fed into these private organizations and the percs that the CEO's of these organizations receive which are all paid by the premiums of the subscribers would also cease to exist with that same signature.

b. Hospitals are now going to have one single source of revenue. No excuses, provide care or you are finished. No double billing, no padding of bills, routine audits to hold down padding and unrealistic costs. The gravy train for hospitals would be officially over.

c. Pharmaceutical giants can scam the public and a private insurance carrier right and left. If we go to a single pay system, OOOOPS! That is over. There is no more brand name and no more generic drug. A single pay plan also eliminates the advertising by drug companies aimed at the consumer. The drugs would again be marketed to the MD's writing the prescriptions. They are all under this different system generic drugs. . . If we falsely charge for drugs that were in fact developed under Government Grants (AZT being one of these from the past) we could get caught couldn't we. We wouldn't want that now would we.

d. If we had a single pay system that ran well, (again theory, because we don't have it yet) who would in fact profit from it. We would eliminate the hidden tax burden shifted to governmental M.I.S.P. programs. The general population would benefit because under this there is no descrimination over pre-existing conditions.

e. Basically we have been misinformed by those stating that this would create a huge, cumbersome and wasteful bureaucracy. We in fact could save money in that the main framework for the new health care system is already in place and has been for decades. They call this system "Medicare". What we simply do is to take all of the money and lump it into medicare covering every American Citizen under Medicare from birth till death and leave it at that. Simple, direct, and without the bungling of private industry and the inequities of the system Medicare could easily be expanded to cover every American.

I agree.

In order for a system regulated by private carriers to work, it would have to be so heavily watched and regulated that it would not be able to function.

Or, what the Republican plan undoubtedly has in mind, LITTLE or no regulation at all resulting in the situations I referenced (in the above article).

These are problems that some states (recognizing the need for intervention on behalf of the under insured and/or overcharged) have already tried to address.

Our system is broken. There is no way to fix the existing system at all. Corporate executives and auditors are never going to be able to place patient care above profit margins. Both the executives and the auditors are by their very nature responsible to stockholders, and responsible to these individuals means that if we don't show a profit we don't keep our jobs. Any system relying on private industry or a total for profit system will never work and be equitable in any manner.

Sadly, I also believe that the current proposal needs to be scrapped simply because it depends on things that are impossible to take place.

Impossible in part because of those who are unwilling to see any kind of meaningful reform achieved. I say, push forward with the proposals, with compromise on those issues for which common ground can be achieved.

Then if the final version of the healthcare reform bill fails, let the failure be on the heads of those who never wanted reform, on those who opposed it from the get, and on those too cowardly to see it through.