http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCXot2HQT00&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg

Thank you very much for respectful argument. I find that rare in any political area, even with people I agree with 95% of the time.

I argue that Tort Reform should be done FIRST for major reasons: According to PriceWaterhouse http://www.ahip.org/redirect/pwccostofhc2006.pdf lawsuits and defensive medicine account for 10% of medicals costs; it can be done separate from other policy decisions; many congressmen dem and gop have vested interest. The amount of seriousness about SERVING the American people can be demonstrated by what they do on this issue. That is also the reason I would be open to their doing my second suggestion of creating a health care plan that they and their Beltway associates would HAVE to participate in, and we would be able to opt into.

As far as your second last paragraph and referring to the only full bill we have access to, 1233: Are you aware that if your insurance provider does as much as changing the copay or drugs they will cover, that change will necessitate that your insurance with them is discontinued and you would then be forced into the government program? If you change your marital status? If you change “no kids” status? That bill is written to force a discontinuation of their current insurance for over 100 million Americans within the next 5 years or sooner.

No surprise when they don’t read the legislation, or when they do not have to comply with it themselves.

Oh- also pertinent since you are right out of college: Since the government will determine ‘minimum coverage’, YOU will be FORCED to buy insurance that will likely cover items such as hip and knee replacements, maternity, abortion (whether you agree with that or now), tattoo removal, holistic treatment, and other items you may KNOW you need no coverage for but you will be FORCED to purchase. If you do NOT purchase them, you will suffer a penalty assessed by the IRS (which may not frighten you now, but trust me, it will as you get older!) That “penalty” will be very dear, if the indicators written can be trusted. You will have no appeal to a court of law, since it is the executive branch of the government which will administrate it (assuming the USSC declares this Constitutional) and with any change of presidential administration, the new appointees will “legally” be able to make wholesale changes in the requirements, since despite the huge nature of the bills, Congress leaves all of that up to the executive branch “administrators”. I don’t think this is the way to run any good system.

I believe that you can now understand why I consider that the current “plans” being discussed are completely unacceptable, and that we should be talking TORT REFORM FIRST … something that will SURELY work to lower costs of services doctors, patients, and hospitals; as well as demonstrate the politicians honest interest in the American people – Definitely opposite to the cost increases of $250 Billion/yr estimated to be a result of the House Bill (and which are more likely to be underestimates) and in addition violates my ultimate benchmark: Personal Liberty.

Respectfully submitted…

Completely agree on tort reform – the amount that hospitals and physicians are liable for due to potential malpractice suits is appalling – there should be some sort of tort cap (although this has been found unconstitutional in some supreme courts, see Oregon’s Supreme Court re Oregon’s $10,000 tort cap)

It should be a part of the plan, but that does not change my stance on the rest of it.

Your statement about Congress designing the plan for itself brings up an interesting point. I doubt that many members of congress would buy into the government or non-profit option, because they are often members of the upper classes, comfortable with their cushy health insurance and far removed from the traumas associated with health insurance denials that many American’s face. Their private insurance at this point probably is better than the government option could be in its initial stages – the government gives great health coverage, and members of congress are certainly not denied based on pre-existing conditions or overly experimental care.

The point of this reform is not to completely change the nature of health insurance – if you like your plan, keep it. A government option (granted it will have to be demonstrated that it can be paid for internally with premiums) is an option for those who have no options, those who struggle to pay their health care, and those fresh out of college (like myself) who will likely not get sick anytime soon but pay ridiculous monthly amounts if they work freelance or contract work.

I doubt those who have no access or limited access to health care would mind if it were the government or any other body making decisions about their care, as long as they can get it.

First: if the government is responsible for the healthcare costs of the citizens, it will drastically change the relationship of the government with the people. Since I desire LIBERTY above all else, I don’t see anything good coming from that change.

Second:
There IS something that should be done FIRST to reduce the cost of medical care. It is undeniably important, yet every attempt to discuss it is squelched by the Dinosaur Old Media and the liberals. Republicans have been attempting to work on doing addressing the problem, but the Senate Democrats have filibustered it EVERY TIME, including when the GOP had 55 or so Senators. For many years those lobbying against it in Washington DC have been the LARGEST MONETARY CONTRIBUTORS to the Democrats, and in fact have FAR greater physical representation than any other industry group in Congress – it is hard not to consider what is occurring pure bribery and corruption.

Something that raises medical expenses on the order of $100 BILLION PER YEAR!!!

- – - Dealing with the cost of the lawsuit culture that gets Americans dreamy-eyed about winning the health-care lobby, enriches the lawyer buddies of the lawyer representations in Congress. It forces doctors and hospitals to do procedures they believe are unnecessary to protect themselves in the event of a lawsuit and raises YOUR copay and insurance costs as a result. What we need first in America to deal with the costs of health care, and something that will bring immediate benefits is: Tort Reform

TORT REFORM FIRST! TORT REFORM NOW!

Chill out a year and see what that begins to accomplish in lowering costs.

Tort reform can and should be done first, NOW and separately. There is no complex entwining and threaded set of current legislation and practice that has to be taken into account. It can and SHOULD be done in a SEPARATE, PRISTINE manner that ALL of us can read, even the Congressmen voting on it! (Imagine that!)

Let the Congress pass that, and then I’ll be happy to consider that they MIGHT possibly be interested in controlling medical costs. Right now their failure to do this leads me to believe they are simply interested in adding to the power and intrusiveness of government and restricting Americans’ Liberty. In addition, it is likely that sufficient pressure might be taken of the laboratories, doctors and hospitals that additional people could be taken care of better! This would REALLY be GOOD reform. Why is there NOT ONE WORD about this HUGE PROBLEM in the House’s HealthCare Monstrosity?

After they accomplish that, I would have no objection:

IF the Congress wishes to work on creating a pilot HealthCare program which MANDATES that ALL Congress be enrolled in FOR LIFE, all federal retirees, and ALL Federal employees be enrolled in while they are employed. Doesn’t it bother you, Stephanie, that the Congress exempts themselves from being governed by the bills that they craft for you?

Let’s see how well Congress designs something that they and their union and non-union buddies are required to purchase. Maybe they would even decide it is worth their time to read the bill. I know that is a radical thought, but I don’t know why it would be. In such a public program, ANY other American ought to be allowed to VOLUNTARILY enroll in that program at any time with the same premium schedule. However, since they are not federal employees, they would be free to change out of it annually. In addition if that program EVER runs a deficit, premiums would be IMMEDIATELY be increased to cover the cost, or benefits must IMMEDIATELY be cut. It can NOT run deficits.

Let’s see how what type of “money saving”, “excellent”, “desirable”, “keep doctor”, “public”, “coop”, “competitive” health care program that they design for themselves and their minions first.

PROVE IT FIRST, Dear Leader and CONGRESS

Stephanie: IF they build it, and PROVE it, we will come, and willingly.

And those are separate issues that can be solved with a more COMPETITIVE market structure. They are not arguments for a government run and controlled health insurance company.

“Second, it doesn’t have to be a free-market in the way it currently is. Why does it have to be profit-driven. If it were a non-profit structure that would remove a great deal of the costs right there – the incentive to maximize profit by denying expensive care to those who are already insured would go away as would the need for executive compensation.”

This is false as well, for two reasons. The first is that tens of millions of people already are insured by non-profit insurance companies, including one that is larger than Canada’s entire population. The other is that health insurance companies are one of the lowest-profit businesses in our economy. And your claims of executive compensation are false as well. Nobody will manage a business (whether for profit or not) that deals with hundreds of billions of dollars without being paid competitively. Such a huge investment absolutely requires efficient management or it will be wasteful.

Care is denied to people because, whether the bottom line has to be zero or positive, there are real constraints on what can be covered and what cannot. Eliminating profit is not going to bring wealth from thin air, in fact, that “profit” is what is paid to people who save their money and put it into a bond or stock of a firm so that you can have insurance. Without the ability for them to earn some sort of return on their investment, you can forget about technological innovation in the health care industry completely.

We lead the world in health care, especially cutting-edge care, because we have a system whereby people put up HUGE amounts of money, risking its loss, so that other people can benefit, and they can get a small profit (on order of 8% per year, which is about 5% after inflation and probably 2-3% after taxes).

It’s easy to demonize “big insurance” and “profit” when you don’t understand how insurance functions. We live in a world full of people hell-bent on destroying the part of our health care industry that DOES function because they want to fix the other inefficiencies.

Trying to create a more efficient market can never happen with more command and more central planning. More competition (not from government, but a more competitive, private enterprise) is how we fix inefficiency in a capitalist system.

If socialism was efficient, we wouldn’t have a market at all–we’d have a centrally planned economy like Iran.

The provision inserted into the bill by an Oregon Congressman would allow medicare to pay doctors whose patients request end-of-life counseling. As human beings, we don’t live for ever. This is nothing but common sense health care. The notion that this type of counseling is tantamount to a government-endorsed ‘death panel’ is nothing more than a thinly-veiled ploy to rile up the GOP’s pro-life constituency.

You should also be ashamed of you’re libelous description of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. You offer an illustration of the Doctor that stems from a Republican political figure who represents a major medical corporation. In reality, Dr. Emanuel opposes euthanasia. His comments about rationing that this woman misrepresented were actually restricted to organ donations where resources are extremely scarce.

I think it has been removed but its clear that its not a fight worth fighting… it has been skewed in such a way that removing it is just the better thing to do in order to save the possibility of overhauling the real problems with the system. Removing it appears like a victory for the opposition but its such a small part of the bill. Providing people end of life care is not a key component of the plan, and it was smart political decision to remove it.

It’s not that I support him blindly, it’s that mI have been exposed to what the word “end of life counseling” actually is when you talk about it in a hospitals. It exists currently, just with a fee. The primary purpose of it is to help people write wills.

It is a ridiculous notion to think that the government desires to control our health care, this is not a conspiracy theory. you can keep your private health care if you want. All this does is provide an option to those who can’t afford it as it currently exists.

Tim: If you want to talk about the market of health care, the first thing to tackle is the gross inefficiencies in it. This is not a smooth market structure right now. Money is wasted in exorbitant amounts with double testings in different hospitals, with poor medical records, with covering the uninsured and passing the costs along. We need to fix the inefficiencies and that’s not happening on its own.

Second, it doesn’t have to be a free-market in the way it currently is. Why does it have to be profit-driven. If it were a non-profit structure that would remove a great deal of the costs right there – the incentive to maximize profit by denying expensive care to those who are already insured would go away as would the need for executive compensation.

I guess all I can say is, we’re talking about people’s lives, many lives of those who are already paying for insurance. Shouldn’t we try something so that more people are better cared for?

Kill the bill.