TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 13, 2009 15:28:04 GMT -5
Plus, he has earned his VA care. It's one thing to question whether Congress should give up their health plan, another to question whether veterans in Congress should give up care they earned in service.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 13, 2009 15:40:41 GMT -5
I find it to be a measured response since it is unclear what the final nuts and bolts of this legislation will be. Considering his daughter's medical condition, it is reasonable to wait and see before making some hasty decision. That said, there are dingbats on both sides of the aisle in Congress. That goes without saying. Now, see, here's where I have a big fat problem. Remember all the plans to ram through health care "reform" before the August recess? Don't you find it just a little worrisome that a guy who should know his daughter's condition very well and the bill very well doesn't know if she'll be covered or not? That's a pretty simple question, even if the VA question was a low blow. How can I contact my Senator or Congressman to support a bill that the White House is selling - hard - when nobody knows what the generics of the bill will be? If you wanted to buy a house, and a builder said "really, the house is great", but then couldn't give you any photos or plans or even a conceptual drawing of the house, and couldn't answer your questions about pretty basic stuff, like whether or not the house had a kitchen, wouldn't you be just a little worried?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2009 16:11:31 GMT -5
It is worrisome from the point of view that it would be nice to know the ins and outs of the relevant legislation as proposed, but it is wise politics not to commit to this or that without any detail behind it (i.e. would you switch to the public option plan?). Politically, nobody stands to gain from answering all questions about the debate when some might not be relevant to the paper at hand (i.e. think single payer discussion). Furthermore, this is a town hall meeting, which members of Congress typically use to gauge public sentiment.
(I don't necessarily agree with it being this way.)
The other major issue is the reconciliation process. The House and Senate may look very different at the end of the day so whatever is conjured up as ideal right now may end up on the cutting room floor. Why would a member of Congress get bogged down in those details with nothing to be gained politically from it?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 13, 2009 16:28:55 GMT -5
It is worrisome from the point of view that it would be nice to know the ins and outs of the relevant legislation as proposed, but it is wise politics not to commit to this or that without any detail behind it (i.e. would you switch to the public option plan?). Politically, nobody stands to gain from answering all questions about the debate when some might not be relevant to the paper at hand (i.e. think single payer discussion). Furthermore, this is a town hall meeting, which members of Congress typically use to gauge public sentiment. (I don't necessarily agree with it being this way.) The other major issue is the reconciliation process. The House and Senate may look very different at the end of the day so whatever is conjured up as ideal right now may end up on the cutting room floor. Why would a member of Congress get bogged down in those details with nothing to be gained politically from it? Because the details matter, and their constituents elected them and want some answers?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2009 16:39:04 GMT -5
It is worrisome from the point of view that it would be nice to know the ins and outs of the relevant legislation as proposed, but it is wise politics not to commit to this or that without any detail behind it (i.e. would you switch to the public option plan?). Politically, nobody stands to gain from answering all questions about the debate when some might not be relevant to the paper at hand (i.e. think single payer discussion). Furthermore, this is a town hall meeting, which members of Congress typically use to gauge public sentiment. (I don't necessarily agree with it being this way.) The other major issue is the reconciliation process. The House and Senate may look very different at the end of the day so whatever is conjured up as ideal right now may end up on the cutting room floor. Why would a member of Congress get bogged down in those details with nothing to be gained politically from it? Because the details matter, and their constituents elected them and want some answers? You and I may think that, but you and I aren't Main Street America, I suspect. I certainly do not see it as the motivating factor of the vocal opposition. For one thing, I think the opposition is formed mostly by folks who would opt out of a public option and simply do not want to foot even a part of the measure. I can't blame them. I don't like paying the Iraq tax. There is also a sentiment from folks who want government to stay out of "my" healthcare, regardless of whether they are in it at this time. There is a smaller chunk (my guess 20%) of the country that is truly evaluating whether the proposed health reform "will work," whatever that means. Another 5-10% may be encapsulated by true concern for big pharma (jobs/profit/etc.) or their campaign donations, if you're a congressperson in those districts. On a less salient note, the people demanding answers at town hall meetings may not be constituents but rather the garden variety staffer-protestor types that have been exposed lately. I did not hear the question as asked of Sestak so it may not be relevant to that particular discussion.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 13, 2009 17:43:27 GMT -5
Something else which frustrates me is the idea that all of these people who are going to town meetings and complaining are being bad.
What gets me is that many people are quick to criticize Americans for not voting. And, the one time when people do get politically and civically interested, everyone yells at them to sit down and shut up or says that they're hired by someone.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 13, 2009 19:00:20 GMT -5
Sorry but this will be long.
There are about 307 million persons living in the U.S., about 46 million without health insurance, leaving about 261 million with insurance, 85%. The 46 million are without health insurance, not without health care, the law requiring anyone who shows up at an emergency room be given care.
The 46 million persons living in America are composed of: - About 10 million illegal aliens (Rasmussen poll says 80% of the public are opposed to any public health care plan for illegals) - about 14 million, eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, who would be enrolled automatically if they went to the hospital. A Georgetown University's Health Police Institute study shows that 70% of children who lack health insurance would get it if their parents enrolled in current government programs - of the remaining approximately 22 million, millions could afford insurance but choose not to get it. Census figures show 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34 and may not see a need for insurance. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 million of the uninsured made $50,000 or more and more than 9 million made more than $75,000 a year.
This leads to my estimate of between 8 and 10 million American citizens without insurance because they can't afford it, a far cry from 46 million.
Instead of imposing an entirely new health system, it makes more sense first to do no harm to those 261 million with health insurance; and, then to provide health insurance for the other 8-10 million citizens. An example of how to do this.
In 2007 there were 141,070,971 personal income taxes filed totaling $1,115,504,000,000.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program has a Blue Cross/Blue Shield Basic plan where the government pays 75% of the premium: in 2009 it pays about $3,300 per year for a single person. For 10,000 citizens without insurance if the government paid each $3,300 a year in the form of a voucher to buy insurance, it would cost $33 Billion each year. A 3% surtax on all income taxes could pay the $33 Billion to insure all American citizens. Everyone who pays income tax would be taxed at the same rate, the wealthier paying considerably more of the actual taxes.
Merely an example to show we can provide "universal coverage" to all American citizens without an entirely new system.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 13, 2009 19:07:05 GMT -5
Of course, at least Sestak had the decency to field questions and not talk on his cell phone like Sheila Jackson-Lee. These Representatives are just too good. I'd call it a reality show, but no one would believe it.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Aug 13, 2009 19:16:45 GMT -5
I like ed's thinking outside the box idea. I do feel, though, that the system needs more of an overhaul than a tweak. Private insurance carriers are often awful to work with, and costs really are climbing at an alarming pace.
|
|
vagrant
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 182
|
Post by vagrant on Aug 13, 2009 20:13:21 GMT -5
As a doctor, internist for 30 years, and an employer, I have two quick comments. As a doctor, yes the government will be able to dictate the quality and quantity of care I provide a patient. This is a double edged sword with some decisions favorable and some unfavorable. As doctors we do not tolerate unfavorable results. If your doctor loses the ability to be your advocate, your outcome will be in jeopardy. As an employer, I laugh at the suggestion that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it." I can tell you right now that if the government insurance plan is cheaper, I am switching all my employees to the cheaper plan. Since most people are insured through work, there may not be a choice to "...you can keep it."
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2009 20:18:33 GMT -5
I am not sure where that frustration comes from. I have not seen any reports suggesting that all negative comments at town halls are coming from the professional staffer-protestors. However, there is evidence to suggest that at least some of them are plants, and there is still another group are out-of-district transplants who seek to disrupt. This kind of behavior does not help constituents to have a voice in these meetings or to make their true voice heard to their elected officials.
There comes a point when a line needs to be drawn on the tactics because it crosses the line of poor taste. Yesterday's ripping of a Rosa Parks sign at Senator McCaskill's event is one such example out of many from the past few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2009 20:29:14 GMT -5
Following up on some of former Governor Palin's remarks, board members may be interested in the following Proclamation that she made before the pressure of the national limelight became intense. This has been making the rounds in the blogosphere this evening. Link: tinyurl.com/q6nys9Text: WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use. WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover, it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive. WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives. WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives. WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives. WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as: Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens. * * * * * I hasten to think how Meg Stapleton will explain this flip-flop away given Palin's alternative English interpretation of the current proposals.
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 375
|
Post by mchoya on Aug 13, 2009 20:51:49 GMT -5
Is there any reason why Wyden's Healthy Americans Act is getting little support in Congress? tinyurl.com/pklyfh It seems like it makes some sense and adopts many of the measures that exorcist mentioned. The only thing that I can think of is that it seems like a lot of the plan is what McCain was advocating for in 2008 and those were measures that Obama campaigned hard against (specifically the health insurance tax credit and the elimination of interstate barriers).
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 13, 2009 20:52:30 GMT -5
As a doctor, internist for 30 years, and an employer, I have two quick comments. As a doctor, yes the government will be able to dictate the quality and quantity of care I provide a patient. This is a double edged sword with some decisions favorable and some unfavorable. As doctors we do not tolerate unfavorable results. If your doctor loses the ability to be your advocate, your outcome will be in jeopardy. But isn't this also true with insurance companies? how is it any different. THey dictate the quality and quantity of care you provide a patient.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 13, 2009 21:05:13 GMT -5
I am not sure where that frustration comes from. I have not seen any reports suggesting that all negative comments at town halls are coming from the professional staffer-protestors. However, there is evidence to suggest that at least some of them are plants, and there is still another group are out-of-district transplants who seek to disrupt. This kind of behavior does not help constituents to have a voice in these meetings or to make their true voice heard to their elected officials. There comes a point when a line needs to be drawn on the tactics because it crosses the line of poor taste. Yesterday's ripping of a Rosa Parks sign at Senator McCaskill's event is one such example out of many from the past few weeks. Agreed. Planting people in the town halls does nothing to further the debate, especially if they turn violent (like some members of the SEIU have done: www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/eye_witness_to_st_louis_scuffl.asp#more ) or misrepresent themselves as doctors/experts: patterico.com/2009/08/12/roxana-mayer-im-not-a-doctor-but-i-play-one-at-town-hall-meetings/And most of the comparing of Obama to Hitler is from the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. He's a nut job, but he's not a Republican (in fact he's run for the nomination as the Democratic Presidential Candidate 7 times: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche). The man's basically running a cult, but his followers have been pushing the Obama as Hitler schtick for a while now. If you've exited Capitol South Metro Station the past few months, they've been handing out their pamphlets (and asking you to throw them away for them ;D) while standing next to posters of Obama with Hitler's mustache
|
|
vagrant
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 182
|
Post by vagrant on Aug 13, 2009 21:05:45 GMT -5
HMO's do to an extent, Privates usually don't. Neither do when it comes to life threatening issues. Usually the regulations are whether they pay for mole removals, or how many colonoscopies you can have. I may not be able to get my patients to have a transplant at the center of my choice but the alternatives are usually good.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2009 21:20:54 GMT -5
I am aware of the apparently unfortunate SEIU tactics - looks like there will be a court record and several factual issues to examine (http://tinyurl.com/nsaa8k) - but was not aware of the isolated, sua sponte actions of the misrepresented expert. I can't explain why the SEIU would disrupt a Democrat (if it originated in the town hall), which leads me to doubt that they instigated this thing. If it originated outside of the town hall, I am not sure what it has to do with anything. The altercation could be related to something else. I have not seen a report of them disrupting a Republican or anti-reform official but would criticize that if it existed. Neither report changes the fact that there have been staffer-protestors on the other side who have disrupted town halls all the same. And most of the comparing of Obama to Hitler is from the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. He's a nut job, but he's not a Republican (in fact he's run for the nomination as the Democratic Presidential Candidate 7 times: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche). The man's basically running a cult, but his followers have been pushing the Obama as Hitler schtick for a while now. If you've exited Capitol South Metro Station the past few months, they've been handing out their pamphlets (and asking you to throw them away for them ;D) while standing next to posters of Obama with Hitler's mustache I know LaRouche's folks have been pushing this angle as much as they did with Bush/Cheney. This, however, does not change the fact that folks on the other side of the aisle have made the same comparison, although in perhaps less organized a manner.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 13, 2009 21:37:34 GMT -5
It seems interesting that, during a variety of protests of the Bush Administration, comparing Bush to Hitler was de rigeur. And yet, despite pretty consistent Democratic ties to the left, nobody in the Democratic leadership really condemned those protestors. More importantly, I think, nobody in the media called for them to.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 13, 2009 21:47:20 GMT -5
And most of the comparing of Obama to Hitler is from the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. That's not true, those comparisons were there during the tea parties.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2009 21:48:15 GMT -5
It seems interesting that, during a variety of protests of the Bush Administration, comparing Bush to Hitler was de rigeur. And yet, despite pretty consistent Democratic ties to the left, nobody in the Democratic leadership really condemned those protestors. More importantly, I think, nobody in the media called for them to. I agree with this. The left needed to do more to condemn the rhetoric there just as former President Bush should have never compared leftish/antiwar policy to appeasement or criticized Yalta. Still, the opportunity exists anew to take a stand against it and the vandalism associated therewith.
|
|