The Future of US Healthcare

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Mentar

The conduct of the Republicans was nothing short of a disgrace. 99% destruction and obstruction, with zero effort to present a rivalling model. Sorry, but whoever really believes that tort reform is going to fix your broken medical system needs his head examined, and preferably in a country where you can actually afford that. So, not in the US.

They doubled down on bringing down the whole bill, and now they're the ones with the cake in their face. Some of the smarter conservatives (e.g. Frum) lament that the bill could have been much better had the Republicans negotiated in good faith, and I don't doubt that. The fact that this bill was eventually passed with Democratic votes alone is 100% the GOPs responsibility, who placed politics before everything else.



The congressional budget office forecasted that the bill was still a major improvement over the status quo, as in "hundreds of billions of dollars are saved, not a trillion spent extra". This whole "screwed economy for 15 years" is pretty much based on mere GOP propaganda with no real basis in reality. And how giving 38 million people health insurance isn't considered a worthy cause in itself only shows the glorified selfishness which permeats major parts of the American society. Sorry. "It doesn't help me, so I'm against it".



You're mistaken, the Senate isn't going to be asked anymore. HCR has succeeded and will now be signed into law by Obama. Read the various news outlets if you doubt me.

1st sentece...repubs show "Zero effort"
2nd sentence...blasting the repub effort for "Tort reform"

I guess that means the 1st sentence was wrong.


... oh and what about all the things the repubs proposed but weren't given any consideration by the dems? What about all the stuff that happened behind closed doors with only dems in attendance?

Yeah, that first sentence is completely WRONG.






highly DELUSIONAL if you think the repubs have any blame in this. They had ZERO vote power in any of this, they can't stonewall or delay a thing. The dems control house, senate and executive. Not a damn thing the repubs could do to stop any of this stuff at any time. It could have been passed a year ago if the dems wanted.

the repubs did have ideas, but they had to slide them under the locked door to the secret dem meetings. Also CNN was locked out from the not open and transparent un bi-partisan meetings.

[monir]

Just wanted to be the part of the history with my fellow Americans. It's not perfect. No where even near, but it is g-u-t-s-y.. a step toward the need for change. The world is changing and so must we.

[Nappy Hared Azn]

Didn't care before it passed, and I don't care know. Yeah, increased taxes/more government control/whatever-people-are-griping-about-this-time sucks, but I've got way bigger problems to worry about.

Anyway, does it cover dental? I haven't been to the dentist in a while because college is making me poor.

[Psycho 101]

While I agree our healthcare systems needs major work here in America, much like everything else, I am not happy with the idea of our government telling us who we can or cannot go to. The idea we'd be forced to get coverage and with who they want us to just to mean would mean us as people giving away yet more of our freeedom to the government. I could go on for pages more but really whats the point? Our best interests are never what the government is concerned about so I'm done hoping for them to actually ever do something that favors the American people over themselves.

[solomon]

It's tough to say but sometimes I argue the government needs strong central power and direction.

At best federalism and decentalization as a whole provides individual choice to do "what is best" at worst, it provides carte blanche for individuals to jostle around causing the entire system to stagger and stumble. This is hurting us in major areas such as Infrastructure and education.

This is no where near the type of centralized power they have in france or UK or whatever.

I don't fear such centralized government systems as much as some people because some EU countries sometimes make such programs work. To me it's less about "what is American" (Civil Rights act was deemed un-american by some) and what is logical or efficent. Single Payer seems fairly efficent compared to US model but whatever, it is what it is.

In some way shape or form, government was going to have to go after and reign in the insurance companies criminal acts. I still fail to see why what they do doesn't attract nearly as much hemming and hollering as opposed to the government doing the same thing.

[Psycho 101]

In some way shape or form, government was going to have to go after and reign in the insurance companies criminal acts. I still fail to see why what they do doesn't attract nearly as much hemming and hollering as opposed to the government doing the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, the companies get just as much ire and disdain from me as the government does. In fact I would say IMHO that this country is largely run by big business and it's become so intertwined with politics anymore if you complain about you you're complaining about the other as they're almost one and the same. They get just as much ire from me but right now my focus is on not simply passing the same situation and same problems from one hand to the other.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by mg1942

highly DELUSIONAL if you think the repubs have any blame in this. They had ZERO vote power in any of this, they can't stonewall or delay a thing. The dems control house, senate and executive. Not a damn thing the repubs could do to stop any of this stuff at any time. It could have been passed a year ago if the dems wanted.

the repubs did have ideas, but they had to slide them under the locked door to the secret dem meetings. Also CNN was locked out from the not open and transparent un bi-partisan meetings.

That's actually fairly incorrect. There are many, many, many ideas and amendments from Republicans in this Bill (for example, every single solution from the GOPs official health care website were added to the Bill: buying health care across state lines (Section 1333); allow small businesses to pool their policies like large corporations do (Section 1312); Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms (Section1302); end junk lawsuits (section 6801 - though this compromise does somewhat go against Republican "ideas"); and, finally, this is a free-market plan, which most progressives despise). The Democrats, while not happy about these compromises were still willing to compromise to get a better Bill (or at least a more publically acceptable Bill). (edit: in retrospect, these sections were in the old bill, and I am unsure where they lie in the new bill, but they are part of the bill. EDIT 2: Here are a few other additions from Republicans...)

Not that any of the Republican ideas actually even came close to actually solving anything, though, which is why the Democrats weren't able to just stick with the Republican ideas...and, in the end, that was the main problem in the GOPs stance. In the end, the problem wasn't the amount of Republican ideas present in this Bill; rather it is the amount of Democrats ideas, or, rather, the fact that Democrats included any ideas at all. This GOP treated the entire process as "my way, or the highway", and no amount of compromise would have affected the GOP's stance on the Bill.

Personally, this entire process reminds me of Bush's push for Social Security reform: early on, Democrats were willing to offer up alternatives, but once they realized that Bush wanted a certain thing (and most of the emerging Bill would be Republican in design), and that they could attack Bush's government by fighting Bush's ideas, they simply pushed down on the brakes, and started complaining and obstructing on the issue (the Democrats obstruction was either good or bad entirely depending on the observers stance on the issue). The result of such obstruction? The Democrats were able to use the issue to attack the Republican base and reclaim the House and Senate in 2006. Presumably, this is the current gameplay the Republican Party is using for the 2010 elections...

That being said, the idea of “back-room deals” is a bit of a misnomer. Every single earmark goes to a specific state or organization, and every single state or organization has known representatives. Consequently, it is known, quite well, who gets what out of these supposed “back-room deals”. (Specifically, we know the benefit and the beneficiaries in almost every earmark, so it’s not like these “deals” are actually secret, even if they occured outside the public eye; consequently labeling them as secret is a bit silly.)

Originally Posted by monir

Just wanted to be the part of the history with my fellow Americans. It's not perfect. No where even near, but it is g-u-t-s-y.. a step toward the need for change. The world is changing and so must we.

Agreed. This is the right step forward...though it is more of a drunken step than a confident step...still it is a step, and that should be applauded...

[Rajura]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Yet you still are controlled by the insurance companies to turf patients who don't have the means to pay. Sounds like you'll just be serving another master.

Most doctors I have worked under take the under- and un-insured into account in their practice. They set aside time for a number of the patients and eat the cost themselves.

That is the altruism of medicine that the government seems to forget that a lot of doctors are engaging in on a daily basis (without them broadcasting their generosity... as well they should not).

Serving another master? I work for the patient population not insurance companies, not the gov't, and not for fame, prestige, or accolade. Woe be unto me the day that statement fails to be true!

[Kaioshin Sama]

The Tea Party's behaviour is starting to remind me a little of the Ku Klux Klan's. Just blind hatred and anger on display along with lots of rhetoric disguised as a sincere and patriotic effort to preserve the union and "god's country". At least to their credit over the KKK they haven't totally degenerated into thuggery and killed anyone yet.....have they?

[synaesthetic]

The various antics of the Tea Party are really making me ashamed of my sociopolitical leanings. Seriously guys I thought us small ell libertarians were supposed to be more mature than this...

[Netto Azure]

US President Barack Obama signs landmark US healthcare bill into law


Mr Obama now has to sell the reforms to a divided American public

US President Barack Obama has signed his landmark healthcare bill into law in a ceremony at the White House.
The new law will eventually extend health insurance cover to about 32 million Americans who currently do not have any.
Mr Obama said he was signing the bill for people like his mother "who argued with insurance companies even as she battled cancer in her final days".
The bill is strongly opposed by the Republicans, who say it is too costly.
Immediately after the signing, attorneys general from 13 states - 12 Republicans and one Democrat - began legal proceedings against the federal government seeking to stop the reforms on the grounds that they are unconstitutional.
Mr Obama was joined at the White House signing ceremony by healthcare reform supporters including Democrats from both Houses of Congress who supported the measure.
He said the bill's provisions were "desperately needed", adding: "The bill I'm signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see."
He hailed the "historic leadership and uncommon courage" of the Democratic leadership in Congress that secured the bill's passage, singling out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for particular praise.
He concluded: "Today after almost a century of trial, today after over a year of debate, today after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the United States of America. Today.
"All of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform."
Mr Obama now has to sell the reforms to a divided American public before November's mid-term elections.
On Thursday, he will go to the state of Iowa to talk about how the new law will help to lower healthcare costs for small businesses and families.
After a heated debate, the House of Representatives voted 219-212 late on Sunday to send the 10-year, $938bn bill to Mr Obama. Not one Republican voted for the bill, and some Democrats also voted against it.
The measure, which the Senate passed in December, is expected to expand health insurance coverage to about 95% of eligible Americans, compared with the 83% covered today.
It will ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with existing medical problems.
Correspondents say the bill represents the biggest expansion of the federal government's social safety net since President Lyndon Johnson enacted the Medicare and Medicaid government-funded healthcare programmes for the elderly and poor in the 1960s.
Mr Obama's campaign to overhaul US healthcare seemed stalled in January, when a Republican won a special election to fill the late Edward Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, enough Republican votes to prevent the bill from coming to a final vote in the Senate.
But Democrats came up with a plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure - despite its opposition to many of its provisions - and then have both chambers pass a measure incorporating numerous changes after the president signed it into law.

So yes, the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is officially law on March 23rd 2010.

Now on to reconciliation.

[synaesthetic]

I wonder when China will finally start refusing to buy any more US treasury bonds...

[mg1942]

The reality is though that under traditional political patterns Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will absorb about 100% of the federal budget by 2050. If Obamacare turns out to be like virtually every other entitlement program, and add to it the stimulus that contained many permanent entitlements and more too big to fail policy with another bubble or two and you could probably cut that in half. Not to mention increases in govt. union power, illegals on the dole, govt. college and more taxes being paid by a smaller and smaller % of the population.

So, by 2030 or so we have some really dire economic issues relative to our current way of life. Probably really dire in a decade or so. We need to be going in the other direction, aggressively. But as noted above the forces against growth just became far stronger and the entitlement/dole mindset more firmly entrenched. We could easily lose our AAA bond rating before that which will accelerate inflation and decelerate foreign investment so we are talking higher taxes. Much higher taxes on citizens and business. That will in turn tend to actually decrease productivity.

We could see progressive tax rates for those actually paying taxes that start at 50% and go up to $90 percent for anyone who actually manages to make it in the not to distant future. On the spending side the military will get cut first, of course, and cut to the bone as it has been in the past. Let’s hope the Chinese decide to play well with others in 2030.

Just look at the EU..... they have essentially traded a useful military and some notable degree of innovation, productivity, personal freedom and opportunity for the national dole. We will do the same if this stands. I don’t want THAT America. Europe is a nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want them to live there.

[james0246]

^The kajiggering of Health Care is, actually, the start of a much larger effort to provide governmental solvency for all entitlement programs (this is also one of the reaosns Republicans so dislike the democratic approach to health care). By working on the costs of the "Obamacare" system, slowly, but surely, costs for Medicare/Medicaid will be eased significantly (presumably with drastic effect by 2020 when the issues of Social Security will reach their breaking point). With the issues of Tort Reform, Energy reform, and a plethora of other issues Obama wishes to deal with, a true solvency, or at least a significant delay (while we wait for those damn Baby Boomers to die off ) can be achieved.

In regards to the current Health Care Bill, the next 3-4 months are pivotal for the Bills survival. The current Republican strategy is to constantly explain the Bill as a waste of money (which is an easy sell for most) and to emphasize that the serious changes will not occur until 2011 and 2014. But, the later part of this strategy is a bit foolhardy specifically do to all the positive effects that will become evident within just 2-3 months. So, the Democrats strategy will be to emphasize the immediate help the Bill provides, and to categorize the Republicans as out of touch with reality (they will do this by simply asking their constituents whether they have felt any impact from the Bill, and quite a few will have positive answers to such a question).

In the end, I think the Bill will help the Democrats (it'll definitely help Obama in the 2012 election), but the economy, which will only just start being picked up this summer, will be the main issue. And while Republicans will push as hard as they can for being re-elected/elected on this whole "repeal" policy, I strongly doubt that will be a significant factor in the moths ahead, and even if elected to a majority (which seems very unlikely, but still possible), I strongly doubt the GOP would actually try and repeal the Bill.

[jsieczkar]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The various antics of the Tea Party are really making me ashamed of my sociopolitical leanings. Seriously guys I thought us small ell libertarians were supposed to be more mature than this...

The Tea Party groups are no longer a libertarian group. After it caught on with the anti Obama crowd it morphed into a Neo-con Republican group, look at who the guest speakers are. The majority of these groups could careless about anything other then opposing Obama, bring up issues like guy rights, separation of church and state and any other social cause and you will find out very quickly how few are actually Libertarians.

[Vexx]

The Tea Party was actually associated with Libertarianism for maybe 10 picoseconds ... its essentially the dangerously infantile thuggish (and easily manipulated) faction at this point.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The Tea Party was actually associated with Libertarianism for maybe 10 picoseconds ... its essentially the dangerously infantile thuggish (and easily manipulated) faction at this point.

What's the Tea Party?
(I can't help but think of alice in wonderland atm)

And yeah, congrats to America.
No matter how the tides flow, it's still a massive shake up in a country that is very hard to get something new to be generally accepted and implemented. It'll be a long and constant work in progress and the future has many socialogical and economical factors that none of us can forsee that may influence this in all kinds of ways.

But it is a point in the country's history

[cors8]

Tea Party was fine until it went off the cuckoo-cuckoo train after being hijacked by the crazy politicians and radio/tv personalities.

[Netto Azure]

Well, the sad thing is, most of the "Entitlement problems" with Medicare can be solved if ALL insurance money went to Medicare. Heck if Medicare is that popular to seniors then why not expand the darn thing to all?

Oops. I just spelt out a way to fiscal solvency that makes sense but nobody wants to adopt because "it's Soshulism."

Then again nobody really wants a frank discussion over this and wraps their argument in broad generalizations of "government is bad" and "the private system will solve everything."

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Mystique

What's the Tea Party?
(I can't help but think of alice in wonderland atm)

A rightist popular movement against what it sees as the Obama Presidency's attempt to redefine America in terms that its members do not appreciate, taking its name from the mythologized Boston Tea Party (remember? :P) as an exemplary act of civil obedience. Also, virtually indistinguishable from similar rightist reactionary popular movements in the last century for being an angry, vicious group of pitifully frenzied masses who strive, sometimes vainly, other times -- tragically -- successfully, against the progress of humanity and the good of the people, including themselves for the most part.

Yes, I feel like being mean today. Forgive me not, for I clearly intend to insult those who feels insulted so.