Archive for Thursday, October 8, 2009
Expert debunks health care myths
October 8, 2009
Advertisement
A Kansas health policy expert dissipated some of the myths circulating about health care reform.
Marcia Nielsen, Kansas University Medical Center vice chancellor for public policy and planning, spoke Wednesday night to about 175 people at the Dole Institute of Politics.
She said finding myths was an easy task. The difficult part was narrowing it down to a top 10 list. But here’s Nielsen’s list broken down by which party made the false claim or “stretched” the truth:
Democrats
1. Health reform won’t raise the deficit one dime. While legislators are saying that the reform will pay for itself over time, Nielsen said it’s too soon to tell. “There’s lots of work left to do.”
2. You can keep your current insurance coverage or the doctor you have. “You may have a different insurance plan,” she said. “Small employers, which is under 20 employees, could buy insurance through the insurance exchange and possibly through the public option if there is one.”
3. The “public option” is only for those who are uninsured.
4. Health insurers deny payment for one of out every five treatments doctors prescribe.
5. Savings from Medicare to pay for reform won’t affect any seniors.
Republicans
1. Health reform will lead to the government rationing your health care. She said there is no rationing in any of the current bills, but “that does not mean that everyone will have everything they want in their health reform or their health insurance in the long term.”
2. Non-U.S. citizens — illegal or not — will get free care. She said illegal citizens would not receive free care and there already are laws that prevent it.
3. Federal funding will be provided for abortion services. Nielsen said the claim is misleading because there currently are limited circumstances that allow for funding of abortions, such as in cases of incest and rape. So, health care reform would not be any different from current laws.
4. The individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional. “Requiring citizens to buy something is a novel concept,” she said. “It hasn’t been tested in the courts. We fully suspect that it will be tested if this legislation is to pass into law.”
5. Health reform bills include “death panels” and mandatory end-of-life counseling. Nielsen said this was the biggest myth of all. “What is included is allowing the health care providers to be paid for spending the time with their patients and talking about end-of-life options. It’s not mandatory,” she said.
Reform needed
Nielsen, who served as executive director of the Kansas Health Policy Authority from 2006 to 2009, said health care reform is needed because we have an inefficient system.
“We require our hospitals to treat every person who walks in the emergency room door, and so we’ve got a system of cost shifting back and forth between the insured and uninsured,” she said. “We have a system that does not pay our doctors, our hospitals, our health providers to coordinate our care very well, and we’ve got a system that’s focused on sickness and not wellness.
“Our doctors and nurses make money the more we go in for treatment opposed to making more money if they absolutely kept us healthy.”
She is hopeful that some reform gets passed, but said there’s a lot of work to be done on a “terribly complicated” issue.
More like this
- Expert to explain health care reform 15 comments / October 4, 2009
- Medical Center official to discuss health care reform 3 comments / September 28, 2009
- KU leader to direct state board June 21, 2006
- New board to tackle Medicaid 2 comments / June 18, 2006
- Marcia Nielsen: Well-coordinated primary care and prevention is needed August 4, 2009
Top ads RSS
- Googols of Learning Child Development Center is now hiring for ...
- ALL GIRLS & GUYS $400 - $850 / week. No ...
- RN, LPN and CNA/CMA positions available in family practice setting. ...
- *********** Customer Service Reps At Vangent, we’re unlike other call ...
- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Fundraising and public relations firm seeking full-time administrative ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 28 comments
- On the street: Will you miss ‘The Oprah Winfrey’ show? November 21, 2009 · 13 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 36 comments
- Palin stirs feminist ambivalence November 21, 2009 · 9 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 69 comments
- Nothing to lose: Reeling KU huge underdog for a change November 21, 2009 · 16 comments
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 120 comments
- Poll: How much are you contributing to the United Way this year? November 21, 2009 · 9 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- No busker ban November 21, 2009 · 6 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009
- On target November 21, 2009
- A sad story November 19, 2009
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
- CLARENCE E. RINKE OBITUARY October 19, 1999
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- Lawrence couple excel in triathlons November 21, 2009
- Farmers' Turnpike reopens after four months of construction November 20, 2009
- Center for East Asian Studies celebrates 50 years of accomplishments November 21, 2009
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009
8 October 2009
at 7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“1. Health reform won’t raise the deficit one dime. ”
It wouldn't have to. Under a single-payer plan, the US could save up to $400B a year over the current “system,” while covering everyone, rather than leaving 1/3 of the country completely uncovered, or inadequately covered.
“2. You can keep your current insurance coverage or the doctor you have. “
Under a single-payer plan, you could go to any doctor you wanted, anywhere in the country.
“3. The “public option” is only for those who are uninsured.”
Under single-payer, everyone is covered.
“4. Health insurers deny payment for one of out every five treatments doctors prescribe.”
Under single-payer, treatment would be determined by you and your doctor to a much greater degree than under the current “system.”
“5. Savings from Medicare to pay for reform won’t affect any seniors.”
Under single payer, everyone would be covered under Medicare, and if the will is there to fix the problems of Medicare, it can be done (the biggest problems are fraudulent claims by private companies and generally just having to operate in the stupid, inefficient “system” we currently have.)
8 October 2009
at 7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
I trust the experts in white smocks that enabled the Poser the other day. Especially, the 3 of 4 that stood with him. Their monetary support for Poser means alot. Currently, the fact that thousands of medical jobs go unfilled because of the lack of candidates will be ameliorated by the Poser printing/ offering, more money to the unemployed. Alot of non-enabler doctors will quit under Posercare. But, again, printed money and VAT will save the day.
Darwin bless you all
8 October 2009
at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ErnestBarteldes (Ernest Barteldes) says…
Good, comprehensive piece. But I agree, a single-payer system (like Medicare) would work much better. But try to pass THAT through the knuckleheads in congress.
8 October 2009
at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Plurilingual (Anonymous) says…
@just_another_bozo_on_this_bus - Yeah, but a single-payer system isn't the topic of this article and it is not a part of any of the seriously proposed bills (as far as I am aware). I have serious doubts about the effect a single-payer system would have on people's freedom to waste their own money on unnecessary medical procedures.
@barrypenders - What are you talking about? I find it incredibly inconsiderate that you would not refer to The President with the respect which the office accords. And what is with the “Darwin bless you all” tagline all the time? That doesn't even make sense, and it only makes you look like a crazy who can safely be ignored.
As usual, those of us that are in the center never get the good catchphrases or soundbites.
8 October 2009
at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
I like barry's posts. He makes considerably more sense, even if it is done humorously and with a certain style, than the far-left lunacy I've read on this award-winning forum. And another thing Pluri, how many words were used to describe Bush and how many “aliases” did Bush get? Maureen Dowd routinely called him “Shrub” and Harry Reid called him “a loser” and the list goes on. On this forum: idiot, “decider”, moron, drunk, imbecile, idiot in chief, dumb*** and the list goes on. And barry is only trying to soothe the far-left with “Darwin bless”. He thinks it makes the lefties on the forum feel good. What's wrong with that?
8 October 2009
at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
I guess this “expert” has some inside knowledge that the monstrous HR3200 is dead in the water, then? I hear today that Reid has his own little health care dirt bomb waiting in the wings, a bill that no one gets to see before it is put up for a vote because, if we did see it, we would protest loudly.
8 October 2009
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
“He makes considerably more sense, even if it is done humorously and with a certain style, than the far-left lunacy I've read on this award-winning forum.”
Hahahahahahahahaha. That's why you're the forum joke, Muse of Hypocrisy.
8 October 2009
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
skinny (Anonymous) says…
15 percent of the U.S. population does not have health care. 85 percent does. Think maybe the 85 percent that already has health care will be forced to pay for the 15 percent that doesn’t have health care? It’s not going to happen. Bet? Let’s put it to a vote!!
Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCv…
8 October 2009
at 9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
skinny, numerous studies conclusively demonstrate that the 85 percent that has health insurance is currently paying through the nose for the 15 percent that do not.
A major goal of health reform is to reverse that trend. Sounds like you're actually a supporter.
8 October 2009
at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Keeshan, how is health care reform going to change that? We will still be paying through the nose, not to the insurance companies and health care providers of our choice, when, and if we want to, but to federal and state government in the form of new fees and taxes, with no choice to opt out.
8 October 2009
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Finally someone is admitting the myths coming from the Democrats. It is amazing how many Obama Acolytes believe without question everything that comes out of his mouth as if it was God himself. Even when you use facts and logic, they just use the same tired line, “No that is a lie because Obama said so…” I guess dissent is no longer patriotic.
8 October 2009
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
“'Requiring citizens to buy something is a novel concept,' she said.”
No, it is an outrageous concept focused on force and control. A government mandate that you buy anything should outrage and appall us all.
8 October 2009
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
STRS….
“A government mandate that you buy anything should outrage and appall us all.”
No it shouldn't. I love my “Chicago 2016 Olympic” T-Shirt Obama made me buy (See SNL skit). And I would buy soylent green even if it wasn't government mandated, because it tastes great. The government only makes me buy stuff they know I really need, and that is why it isn't a tax. If the government told me how I had to spend more of my money, I wouldn't be wasting it on stuff like soap and books.
Now you will have to excuse me so I can go shopping for a GM (Government Motors) car…
8 October 2009
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jimo (Anonymous) says…
“Finally someone is admitting the myths coming from the Democrats.”
Actually, it unclear - like all of the other Democratic “myths.” Rather, these claims see to be unproven or not as simple as stated. Saying, for example, that you can keep your insurance if you want belies the fact that almost no one has the insurance they do by their own choice by as the result of other's choices. Nothing proposed will change that fact. More accurately, the Democratic plan will not mandate that you change your insurance. We're left without any explanation for Democratic items 3,4, and 5.
In contrast, calling the Republican points “myths” seems an undeservedly polite phrase for “lies” although “spin” these days stretches adequately to cover such fabulisms.
8 October 2009
at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Hmm…
Tom is endorsing Barry; oops, just lost interest in what Barry has to say.
Bob K nails one.
For a bit more of the connection, imagine that treating people with no insurance in the emergency room costs the hospital something. Do they print their own money? No. So, they get the money from someone else. Who? Mostly it would be from the people who do have insurance. The insurance companies don't print money either; they get it from you and me. So, yeah, I have no problem with forcing people to contribute something to the cost of their health care. I've known too many that buy cigarettes and booze before health insurance, even for their kids.
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
““'Requiring citizens to buy something is a novel concept,' she said.”
No, it is an outrageous concept focused on force and control. A government mandate that you buy anything should outrage and appall us all.”
Is requiring them to pay something for the services they receive that outrageous?
8 October 2009
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Jimo…
“Saying, for example, that you can keep your insurance if you want belies the fact that almost no one has the insurance they do by their own choice by as the result of other's choices. More accurately, the Democratic plan will not mandate that you change your insurance.”
The reason why this is correctly labeled a myth, is because like you say, the insurance most people have is based on their employer's choice, not their own. So, if employers are given the choice of staying on their same plan, or paying a penalty which is less than staying on their current plan, what do you think many employers will do?
Many employers will do what is cheapest, which forces people (insurance will be required) to shop elsewhere. So while most proposed legislation doesn't directly require YOU to change insurance, it does indirectly change many individuals insurer/doctor by giving your employer an incentive to drop their insurer.
8 October 2009
at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
“The government only makes me buy stuff they know I really need, and that is why it isn't a tax.”
Hear, hear! Thank the maker for our beneficent and all-knowing overlords!
8 October 2009
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Pluri,
Barry is actually paying tribute to a user who seems to have been disappeareded by the name of “Logrithmic”. Log would always sarcastically say “God Bless” at the end of his posts.
Apparently Barry decided to copy good ol' Log endings to pay homage and acknowledge Log's superior posting skills. Everytime I read Barry's comments, he always reminds me how much I miss Log. Just don't tell Barry that imitation is the greatest form of flattery you can do for your fellow poster.
8 October 2009
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Cg22165…
“Is requiring them to pay something for the services they receive that outrageous?”
The fallacy in your logic is that not everyone is/will be receiving these services. The young and healthy particularly use these services infrequently if at all. But even though people who choose not to buy insurance or don’t go to the emergency room, will still be required to pay. So they get nothing (by choice) and must pay for it (by coercion).
If you are so concerned with people not paying for the services they use, then you could try to change the law which requires hospitals to provide services even if the individual cant pay. If you support these services, then you don’t mind paying for someone else’s services, and therefore the need to make other people pay isn’t required.
8 October 2009
at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Isn't it the Dems who always claim conservatives shouldn't legislate morality? But it is okay for them to force morality on others?
Maybe a consensus could be reached where both get to “impose their morals,” by requiring school children to read the Bible, and also having universal health care. (See tongue-in-cheek).
8 October 2009
at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
A good article.
Thank you Marcia Nielsen and thank you Karrey Britt.
8 October 2009
at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
How is forcing people to pay for and have auto insurance any different? It's still forcing people to buy something and god help ya if you DON'T have it and you're caught driving! They send ya to jail! And god help ya if you DO have it and you DO have an accident! Your rates will go up and you will pay through the nose for the next ten years! Believe it or not our car insurance rates went up because someone hit US! The driver was clearly found in the wrong and ticketed yet OUR rates went up! Yet we're forced to pay for this stuff for the “privilege” of driving.
8 October 2009
at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Cait48…
“How is forcing people to pay for and have auto insurance any different?”
Owning a car is a choice, which many people who live in densely populated urban regions choose not to own. Mandatory health care isn’t related to any choice. It is a way to transfer wealth from the young and healthy to the elderly, people who live unhealthy lifestyles, and illegal aliens. (In case you aren’t sure how illegal aliens benefit; many aren’t in the system and therefore can’t be forced to pay insurance, but will still continue to get the benefits of free access to emergency rooms).
8 October 2009
at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
cg,
There are millions of healthy adults who earn enough money to buy health insurance but who choose not to. If the government forces them to buy a product they don't want and they don't need, then they aren't receiving the “service” you are suggesting.
How else can the government pay for a health care takeover if it doesn't take from one group and redistribute it to another?
8 October 2009
at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Cait,
Satirical is right. I would add to his/her comments that you're only required to carry liability insurance on your vehicle, not collision. Liability insurance protects the other driver from my mistakes.
A government health insurance mandate is designed to protect me from me, which is foolish and unnecessary. (Of course, the mandate would have the additional effect of raising taxes on millions of Americans as well as placing every citizen further under government's thumb.)
8 October 2009
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madameX (Anonymous) says…
“”“”“”So, if employers are given the choice of staying on their same plan, or paying a penalty which is less than staying on their current plan, what do you think many employers will do?”“”“”“”
I don't know about this line of reasoning. Under the current system, employers can drop health insurance if they want to without having to pay anything at all, and there are still employers who choose to offer health insurance. I think they do this because they don't just see health insurance as an expense, they see it as a benefit to employees that will give those employees an incentive to stay with the company. The “benefit” aspect of offering health insurance isn't going to evaporate if there's a fine imposed for not offering it, so for employers who want to offer it, and can afford to offer it, the fact that paying a fine would be less won't make much of a difference.
(I'm not defending the idea of having a fine because I think it would do more harm than good to employers who already can't afford to offer health insurance, I just don't think that particular argument against it is valid)
8 October 2009
at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
Whenever I see the word expert in any sentence I know someone is trying to pull a bag over my eyes.
It usually means someone is trying to sell you something you should not buy.
8 October 2009
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
madameX…
Employers will not give benefits if it is truly not a benefit. Something is usually only viewed as a benefit if you get something others don’t have. Health insurance is a “benefit” for the fact that not all employers provide it, and the unemployed must pay more for it. If everyone gets health insurance (since it will be required) then it is no longer a benefit to employees. It would be like an employer benefit of “clean water” or “bathroom breaks.” Every employer offers this, and you can get this even without an employer. Since maintaining insurance wouldn’t be a true benefit, and dropping insurance wouldn’t adversely impact employees, employers will often do what is cheapest.
The only time it would be a true benefit is with a really good insurance provider. However, since most insurance providers are similar at their respective rates, many employers change their provider whenever they can save money. (Has your insurance provider changed in the last few years?)
I do not deny some employers will choose to keep their current health insurance provider even though the costs are high, but my argument was not that ALL employers will make this change, only that many would make the most economically rational choice. The high wage earners may not be as affected, since they are in higher demand, but the average blue collar worker is much more likely to be adversely affected.
Thank you for your rational and civil disagreement.
8 October 2009
at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Go To: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
The problem is we DO NOT have the best insurance coverage in the world.
According to the CBO HR 676 is the only proposal that DOES save dollars. Yes in fact $350,000,000,000(billion). HR 676 is the only proposal with 86 co-sponsors.
Any action taken that includes the the most expensive medical insurance industry in the world will of course increase in cost. So will changing nothing by about $4,000 a year in 2010. Yep this is privatized industry for ya. In reality it is dumb economics.
AND:
This is something to never forget. It is the private medical insurance industry that cancels YOUR medical insurance AFTER taking your money for years.
Smart National Health Insurance for All will not only improve our quality of life but also our wallets. Yes we would have more expendable cash for birthdays,Christmas, vacations,home improvements,home purchase and investments.
This family wants OUR tax dollars paying for OUR National Health Insurance for all because OUR tax dollars is OUR money.
8 October 2009
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Where Does All the Money Go?
After you’ve finished gasping in surprise at the share of your income that is already going into health care, you may wonder where all that money goes.
One answer is that the United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world, including over 1,500 different companies, each offering multiple plans, each with its own marketing program and enrollment procedures, its own paperwork and policies, its CEO salaries, sales commissions, and other non-clinical costs—and, of course, if it is a for-profit company, its profits.
Compared to the overhead costs of the single-payer approach, this fragmented system takes almost 25 cents more out of every health care dollar for expenses other than actually providing care.
Of the additional overhead in the current U.S. system, approximately half is borne by doctors’ offices and hospitals, which are forced to maintain large billing and negotiating staffs to deal with all the plans. By contrast, under Canada’s single-payer system (which is run by the provinces, not by the federal government), each medical specialty organization negotiates once a year with the nonprofit payer for each province to set fees, and doctors and hospitals need only bill that one payer.
Of course, the United States already has a universal, single-payer health care program: Medicare. Medicare, which serves the elderly and people with disabilities, operates with overhead costs equal to just 3% of total expenditures, compared to 15% to 25% overhead in private health programs.
Since Medicare collects its revenue through the IRS, there is no need to collect from individuals, groups, or businesses. Some complexity remains—after all, Medicare must exist in the fragmented world that is American health care—
but no matter how creative the opponents of single-payer get, there is no way they can show convincingly how the administrative costs of a single-payer system could come close to the current level.
Some opponents use current U.S. government expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid to arrive at frightening cost estimates for a universal single-payer health care system. They may use Medicare’s $8,568 per person, or $34,272 for a family of four (2006).
But they fail to mention that Medicare covers a very atypical, high-cost slice of the U.S. population: senior citizens, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and people with disabilities, including diagnoses such as AIDS and end-stage renal disease.
Or they use Medicaid costs—forgetting to mention that half of Medicaid dollars pay for nursing homes, while the other half of Medicaid provides basic health care coverage, primarily to children in low-income households, at a cost of only about $1,500 a year per child.
More:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv…
8 October 2009
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
The “expert” says: “2. Non-U.S. citizens — illegal or not — will get free care. She said illegal citizens would not receive free care and there already are laws that prevent it.”
But, but, Nancy Pelosi says today, in support of her newest brainstorm, to tax “windfall profits” of health insurance companies: “I have asked Chairman Rangel to see what is in it for us,” Pelosi said. “There's more that the insurance companies could contribute to this health care reform. They're going to get 50 million new consumers, many of them subsidized by the taxpayer. They can put more on the table.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/622…
50 million new consumers, huh? There are not 50 million uninsured citizens and legal residents in this country. The figure is closer to 30 million.
Either Nancy Pelosi intends to provide free health care to the nearly 20 million people who are here illegally, or she foresees amnesty occuring before Obamacare is implemented.
Care to debunk this, Ms. Expert?
8 October 2009
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
So, what we've learned from Satirical and STRS is that the young and healthy never have accidents or otherwise need medical care, and that it is perfectly OK to go through life expecting others to pay for anything bad that happens to you.
Whatever.
8 October 2009
at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jimo (Anonymous) says…
Satirical; “So while most proposed legislation doesn't directly require YOU to change insurance, it does indirectly change many individuals insurer/doctor by giving your employer an incentive to drop their insurer.”
This seems true to me and is part of a reasonable critic of the Democratic plan. Whether it is a “myth” is a matter of opinion.
That said, I believe you're too sanguine about employers dropping coverage merely because the penalty is cheaper. Remember, this is a job benefit, part of total compensation to employees. If one particular employer's total compensation is materially less than competitors, some/many employees - probably the best ones - will leave for greener pastures. Nothing forces employers to offer health coverage now except as a means of retaining employees. What Dems are (secretly) betting on is that their alternative “public option” proves popular and employees either don't mind or even prefer that route over private plans thereby achieving public insurance (a) over time and (b) with most employees/voters consent.
(Note: I believe these are points that people on opposite partisan sides are in fact more likely to be agreeable on (not in agreement) if only some of the silly partisanship can be put aside.)
8 October 2009
at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Cg22165…
So, what we’ve learned from you is that you create strawman arguments and put words in people’s mouth because you can’t come up with a rational counter-argument.
I didn’t say anything close to what you claim I did. But hey, why let facts get in your way….
8 October 2009
at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Jimo…
“Remember, this is a job benefit, part of total compensation to employees.”
For my response to this, please see my post at 2:56 p.m. (especially the 2nd and 3rd paragraph).
8 October 2009
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
STRS says: “There are millions of healthy adults who earn enough money to buy health insurance but who choose not to.”
Was that a positive example or a negative? I got the impression you felt it was a perfectly legitimate choice. Or, are you assuming that all these people can pay out of pocket for a major medical expense?
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Cg22165…
“Is requiring them to pay something for the services they receive that outrageous?”
The fallacy in your logic is that not everyone is/will be receiving these services. The young and healthy particularly use these services infrequently if at all.
Seems to me that you are arguing that the young and healthy should not have to pay for insurance, and since most people can't pay out-of-pocket for a emergency room/hospital trip, what other conclusion can you draw from these statements?
8 October 2009
at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
cg,
No, most of the young and healthy pay for health care like they do any other product or service - as they have want or need. The government should not force them to buy something they don't want.
8 October 2009
at 5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Forcing people to have healthcare. Sounds like a government that needs to be replaced come November 2010 with some people who will obey us not the other way around.
8 October 2009
at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llama726 (Anonymous) says…
STRS, your idea is that we shouldn't have insurance then?
8 October 2009
at 5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jimo (Anonymous) says…
Thanks, Satirical, but I don't believe this “auto” response provides any response. Again, employers can drop all coverage right now without any penalty. Why would they be MORE likely to start dropping coverage once a penalty is added?
8 October 2009
at 5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
Isn't this “expert” the same Marcia Nielsen who incompetently ran the Kansas Health Policy Authority? They had to hire a management coach at $30,000 a year for her (to try to improve her performance) and she couldn't show sucess …. then she jumped from the boat before she was thrown overboard.
Interesting how the article goes into significant detail on the items presented by Republicans and brushes over the Democratic issues. Like the significant cuts to Medicare won't impact services to seniors. How about talking a bit what those impacts might be?
8 October 2009
at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
“Isn't this “expert” the same Marcia Nielsen who incompetently ran the Kansas Health Policy Authority?”
Yes.
Some expert - an expert on running (poorly) publicly-funded healthcare. Really impartial. (You could also check online as to who she contributed to in the last election, but somehow I doubt it would surprise anyone.)
8 October 2009
at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
godot: if we did see it, we would protest loudly.
'we'? you mean Grampa's Old Party members?
you protest everything LOUDLY. that's why you are a minority.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
teeny little extra-loud minority!
hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahaha!
bunch of wittle teeny-weeny schrump-a-keeny minority!
swimming in a small pond of a republican oasis (kansas)
but still,
just
a
loud
teeny
little
minority!
hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha!
go brownback
Go roberts!
8 October 2009
at 8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Seniors in the end will not take a hit. Seniors would be far better off under National Health Insurance. In fact seniors from all sides of the aisle are among the activists.
Getting What We’ve Already Paid For
“Americans spend more than anyone else in the world on health care. Each health insurer adds its bureaucracy, profits, high corporate salaries, advertising, and sales commissions to the actual cost of providing care.
Not only is this money lost to health care, but it pays for a system that often makes it more difficult and complicated to receive the care we’ve already paid for.
Shareholders are the primary clients of for-profit insurance companies, not patients.
Moreover, households’ actual costs as a percentage of their incomes are far higher today than most imagine.
Even families with no health insurance contribute substantially to our health care system through taxes.
Recognizing these hidden costs that U.S. households pay for health care today makes it far easier to see how a universal single-payer system—with all of its obvious advantages—can cost most Americans less than the one we have today.”
=============
Smart National Health Insurance for All will not only improve our quality of life but also our wallets. Yes we would have more expendable cash for birthdays,Christmas, vacations,home improvements,home ownership and investments.
8 October 2009
at 9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
I see puddleglum has subscribed to the pooch_person_posting syle. (Although one might notice some more direct connection between their posts.)
Or he's off his meds.
“you protest everything LOUDLY. that's why you are a minority.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/5…
>>> “Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States”
“swimming in a small pond of a republican oasis (kansas)”
Which I guess would make Lawrence an itty-bitty less-significant - well, puddle. No wonder you're so glum.
8 October 2009
at 10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
SettingTheRecordStraight
OK, who do you think should pay for it when they, or any other uninsured person, falls off a balcony, wrecks their car, gets cancer, etc., and racks up medical bills they have no way of paying?
Insurance typically isn't something you can buy after you have a problem, you know. That's kind of the nature of insurance.
8 October 2009
at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
The alternative is to let the government babysit us from birth to death while we forfeit all our income and we hand over our civil liberties and our dignity.
I'll take risk and freedom over insulation and shackles.
8 October 2009
at 10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Boy, talk about jumping to extremes.
Can you answer the question?
8 October 2009
at 11:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Or the alternative is you can let insurance babysit us etc.
The bottom line is that whoever pays for care is continually getting squezed. This includes Medicare/Medicaid, Insurance, employers, and us. Even if you have employer based insurance, your out-of-pocket costs are going to continue to go up. And good employers will reluctantly be forced to cut employees, lowerer wages and salaries, and even out-source jobs to stay afloat.
In a way, it is ironic that insurance is being maligned, but they are being pressured by rising costs as we all are. They are often the ones who pay 50k for a broken arm and lord knows how much it costs us to have a baby. Somehow we've got to bring down these hospital costs and accept a cheaper and more basic care.
If I were to lose my job or switch jobs, I'd be very reluctant to pay an insurance company $1,000 a month or bear rejection because I have seasonal allergies and bronchitis (pre-existing). I'm also a red flag because I was prescribed anti-depression medicine years ago.
If it is my time, it's my time. I might check if the vet can fix a broken arm, or maybe even clean my heart valves. But I ain't going to pay no insurance company,
8 October 2009
at 11:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Danimal (Anonymous) says…
Remember when “small employers” were classified as fewer than 100 or by some standards 50 employees?
11 October 2009
at 4:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
This is something to never forget. It is the private medical insurance industry that cancels YOUR medical insurance AFTER taking your money for years.
This could never happen with National Health Insurance
Filing bankruptcy due to medical care would never happen with National Health Insurance
11 October 2009
at 4:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blo…
If you’ve been watching the Senate Finance Committee’s markup sessions, maybe you’ve noticed a woman sitting behind Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Her name is Liz Fowler.
Fowler used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was its vice president of public policy. Baucus’ office failed to mention this in the press release announcing her appointment as senior counsel in February 2008, even though it went on at length about her expertise in “health care policy.”
Now she’s working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want – higher profits – and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.
A veteran of the revolving door, Fowler had a previous stint working for Senator Baucus – before her time at WellPoint. But wait, there’s more. The person who was Baucus top health advisor before he brought back Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. And why did she leave the staff of the committee? To go to work – surprise – at a firm representing the same company for which Liz Fowler worked – WellPoint. As a lobbyist.
You can’t tell the players without a scorecard in the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. It’s why they always win. They’ve been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House – health care, energy, financial reform, the Employee Free Choice Act and more – the soil has never been so fertile.
The health care industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress and more than 500 of them are former Congressional staff members, according to the Public Accountability Initiative’s LittleSis database.
Just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, the industry has been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that whatever bill comes out of the Finance Committee puts for-profit insurance companies first — by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.
In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent $380 million on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And — don’t bother holding onto your socks — a million and a half of it went to Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, the man who said he saw “a lot to like” in the two public option amendments proposed by Senators Rockefeller and Schumer, but voted no anyway.
The people in favor of a public alternative can’t scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career. In fact, over the last two decades, the current members of the entire finance committee have collected nearly $50 million from the health sector, a long-term investment that’s now paying off like a busted slot machine.
11 October 2009
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
llama726 (Anonymous) says…
“The alternative is to let the government babysit us from birth to death while we forfeit all our income and we hand over our civil liberties and our dignity.
I'll take risk and freedom over insulation and shackles.”
Try again. This time try to talk about the issues rather than giving me some generalized junk about liberty and freedom. So much dignity in having to ask your entire family to come up with your cancer treatment payments because your insurance company dropped your coverage, right? That's the free market solution.