This is idiocy. You can of course pay for private healthcare – even out of pocket – if you can afford it, as before.

It has always been for me a matter of cost.

Anyone noticed how expensive ordinary, everyday things have gotten in the last year to year and a half?

Thats the result of three things.

1. Minimum wage has gone up. Great help for those people right. Raise their wages so they supposedly make more and everyone just raises the prices of everything else…usually much higher then minimum wage would offset….further eroding their earning power.

2. Companies still have to make a profit to succeed. Even in bad times. When you sell less of something you raise the price of that something to offset the loses because you know people still have to buy it…Gasoline is a good example. Food. etc.

3. Inflated values of goods and services. I called a plumber the other day. He was at my house for 4 hours 45 minutes. He billed me for 6 hours. When times are tough everyone and I do mean everyone is out to soak everyone in order to get every penny they can in tough economic times.

When this health care bill fully hits America its going to be a head on collision and its going to stop this economy dead in its tracks. But the Democrats dont care…they will just blame it on the Republicans and 1/2 of the population will actually believe them.

Brengt

Medicare is bankrupt.

Its not about being happy with something. Its about affording it.

America cannot afford this healthcare boondoggle because we are promising to pay for the poor with money from the rich. Thats how it always works.

Well there aint nothing free in life. At least not in the USA. The Democrats promise us that this health care will cost 1 trillion over 10 years.

Lets take them at their word. We are now going to raise taxes to pay for this.

YET…we are using up available TAX dollars to pay for a NEW entitlement program while doing NOTHING about the deficit.

We are digging ourselves a huge hole and when that happens its time to stop digging.

The Democrats want everyone to grab a shovel and jump in and help them dig.

Jason, is it being smug to point out that the vast majority of old people in the US are happy with Medicare, which is a single-payer system?

If intended as a complete response, then yes, it is smug. That is because your response evades the fact that Medicare is running HUGE deficits and that it requires supplementation by other insurance policies (e.g. AARP’s “Medicare Advantage”) to result in the happy customer base you are reporting. In short, your response falsely reports Medicare as a “single-payer system” when it is not — it requires supplemental coverage to achieve satisfactory results. Indeed, some suspect that increased business for “Medicare Advantage” resulting from dissatisfaction with the increased government control of health care is exactly what the AARP is hoping for with its endorsement of health care reform. The more the government sucks at it, the more business they get, while at the same time reaping the political benefits of being paid off by Democrats — a double win for the AARP, unless of course, you look at the plight of the actual membership.

Also, let’s not forget that the majority of the “cost savings” claimed by the Democrats’ bill comes from plans to CUT Medicare payments to doctors. Since many doctors are already refusing to accept Medicare because they can’t afford to stay in business when its low payment rates are combined by high malpractice insurance premiums, we can expect that problem to get much, much worse as more people are forced on to the government-run system. This is also much worse because the Democrats refuse to consider tort reform that would address the malpractice insurance problem.

Basically, it is reasonable to suspect that the government will react to flight by doctors from Medicare by mandating that they accept it. At that point, doctors will have no choice but to make up the lost revenue by increasing costs on private sources and thus increasing private health insurance premiums. That is one of several ways in which government mandates seem likely to result in a de facto ban on private insurance.

You also failed to respond to my points about government mandates to outright ban private insurance, the fact that no one knows what is and is not actually in the House bill, and the history of other single-payer countries banning private insurance. If you refuse to respond with substance, it will be reasonable to assume you are conceding those points and admitting that you did not and do not know what you are talking about with your smugly vague proclamations of other people’s “idiocy” (your word).

Until you stop responding with one-liner scripted talking points and actually engaging the argument, Bengt, yes, you will continue to come across as both smug and ignorant.

So put up or shut up. Engage the details of the actual arguments of people who disagree with you or please buzz off back to the safe and easy confines of left-wing group-think from which you memorized those talking points in the first place.

Palin’s argument that the same philosophy that allows abortion rights could soon be invoked to allow the government to cut off health care from those it deems undesirable may sound extreme.

So extreme that it’s been actively seen in action in most if not all of the nations that have government-controlled healthcare systems. Especially with the elderly. Witholding of medical services from the aged is one of the prime ways that governments control costs. As Jason points out, and true to form, the Dem bill proposes to cut the hell out of Medicare as well as turning Medicare into an HMO-type plan.

When President Obama says that a public option will not change your current health care coverage he is, frankly, lying.

Yep. Knowingly lying his ass off, pants-on-fire and nose-growing lying, Baghdad-Bob-level lying. EX: We would almost certainly lose our family policy, a high-deductible plan coupled with a health-savings account, and have to purchase a low-deductible standardized policy (as defined by the government) that would cost us more and deliver us MUCH less that we can use while “providing” us with mandatory coverages we neither need nor want, all while restricting our access to our physicians.

The 1990-page monstrosity can be found HERE. [PDF warning]

Medicare and Medicaid, both government run entities, provide the vast majority of health care for the elderly and infirm in the US right now. This bill does not change who will be making those life and death decisions for seniors.

Yet many elderly find it necessary to get supplemental insurance to fill the gaps already in Medicare, even before the cuts that the Democrats are relying on to produce “savings” to pay for the new mandates in the health care reform package.

Your continuing attacks on the personal honesty of everyone who disagrees with you should get you banned, IMHO. Such behavior has, unfortunately, become the norm from Democrats and liberals on this and pretty much every political issue these days. The part that once said “dissent is patriotic” now seems to believe that dissent is always bad. Convenient, that.

To be clear, I am not yet sure whether or not I support this bill but those objections do not hold water.

Of course you don’t claim a position on the bill, because that would require you to actually defend a position instead of taking potshots at other people with no burdens at all on your side of the debate. Convenient again. You don’t seem capable of making your own arguments. You just want to nit-pick details in other people’s arguments. And that is, IMHO, very cowardly.

and the party that labeled all dissent unpatriotic and anti-American now finds it patriotic. This is just one of the many positions that has flipped with the change of power.

And since you refuse to ever defend a position of your own, you claim the right to point fingers of accusation about the hypocrisy of others without ever exposing your own.

Cowardly.

I’m coming to the inescapable conclusion that you are just a troll, Jeb.

I do not however need any further information to know that the claim that some new entity will be deciding what care grandma does or does not get is bogus.

I am sure that many Britons didn’t seek further information about such a ridiculous impossibility until, of course, the ridiculous impossibility became policy.

I also think that the fact that you have reduced all the many, many criticisms of the health care bill down to the old “death panels” canard to be a further revelation of bad faith on your part. The fact that you have consistently — over a period of months — refused to respond substantively to a huge range of serious concerns about cost, mandates, doctor flight, and equipment shortages — seems to me proof of troll-dom.

Jason,

I also think that the fact that you have reduced all the many, many criticisms of the health care bill down to the old “death panels” canard to be a further revelation of bad faith on your part.

I was responding to this,

Sarah Palin is making waves by saying that the Democrats’ mega-healthcare plan – which seems likely to pass the House at any moment – will give government the power of life and death over the elderly and infirm. Of course this is true. Of course it is.

From the lead paragraph of the post we are commenting on. There were not “many, many criticisms of the health care bill” in this article, it focused on this reworking of the “old “death panels” canard”, so my criticism is entirely within bounds, on topic, and valid.

The fact that you have consistently — over a period of months — refused to respond substantively to a huge range of serious concerns about cost, mandates, doctor flight, and equipment shortages

I have responded to them repeatedly. Just because you didn’t/don’t like my responses doesn’t mean that they do not exist.

Doomed,

why hasnt the democrat controlled house and senate gone ahead and fixed it by rolling these cuts into place?

Isn’t the proposed bill doing just that?

Jeb :
Jason,
You and Marc have still not answered my questions regarding the health care bill giving “government the power of life and death over the elderly and infirm.”
So again,

funny,

You’ve yet to answer questions for weeks now jeb.

Tully,

can?t seem to find the hundreds of billions being cut from Medicare Advantage

The government spends ~14% more per patient for patients on Medicare Advantage plans. It is my understanding that the cuts will bring the spending to a more even level and that the additional costs would be shifted to premiums for Medicare Advantage plans. Grandma or Grandpa will still be able to buy a Medicare advantage plan, but they will have to pay a bit more (be subsidized a bit less). The decision of whether to take vanilla Medicare coverage or a Medicare advantage remains with the individual and the decision of what coverages are or or not provided remains the same.

the extensive structural shifting that would change Medicare from a fee-for-service plan to (essentially) a government HMO

Could you point me to those provisions?

I have been very busy with work and a move and probably will not have time to read the entire bill and will have to rely mostly on others reading supplemented by reading the sections of the bill referred to in that analysis. If any one here can point to specific provisions actually written in to the bill that are objectionable I would like to see them and read the section of the potentially objectionable sections.

Like I said in my original comment I don’t yet know whether I prefer this bill to the status quo. That said, the oft postponed cuts in Medicare reimbursements and cuts to Medicare Advantage to bring the government contribution more in line with its contribution to vanilla Medicare on a per patient basis seem entirely reasonable and should enjoy bipartisan support. What is the argument in favor of a larger per patient government subsidy for Medicare Advantage patients?

Before the civil war the first people to shout about succession from the union was not the south but rather the northeast.

As Lincoln said I dont think the Union will dissolve…..but then you never know….

14 states….today…this minute are on the literal verge of bankruptcy and our government wants them to take on and shoulder even more shock and awe.

Barak Obama and the democrats have shown GWB and the GOP what shock and awe is really all about.

Jeb

Many top democrats are on record. Have been taped saying….

Public option is the first step to single payer…government run HMO’s.

With that being said….can you point to language in the bill that specifically says…we will not run private insurance out of business if they cannot compete….We have no intention of dictating to physcians and hospitals what they will and will not charge.

Can you point out “where” it does not do what top democrats are caught on tape advocating??

The final House version (HR 3962) is 2016 pages, Jason.

Of course not, Doomed. Jeb wants everyone else to do his research for him, at which point he will once again change the subject or allege that’s not exactly what he said and go off on another diversionary tangent. It’s so much easier than actually reading the 2016 pages of HR 3962, reconciling it with the existing statute salready on the books and assessing the change impacts, considering the implications thereof, and forwarding a grounded argument. Thus he ignores little things like the $393M in MCD cuts to nursing homes and long-term care facilities, the substitution of Physician Assistants in place of “attending physicians” in ordering post-hospital services, the “payment adjustments” for post-acute care services and home health care, the inevitably expansionary substitution of “market baskets” and “service bundling” provisions for fee-for-service in treatment areas, the subjection of claims review to an “External Review Process,” and so on. There’s also the new mandates for things such as marriage counseling and “family therapy” services and “diversity efforts” that will effectively take money away from actual medical care, diluting available funding. All under the direct control and review of the Orwellian-titled “Health Choices Kommissar Commissioner.” Appointed by the President, of course. (Because we don’t have enough Caesers already.) Yep, someone to tell us what our “choices” will be.

And there’s always, as you and Jason correctly note, many <iyears worth of the public statements of our Illustrious Majority Leaders. Such as that blatant lie about “If you like your current plan, you can keep it,” despite the non-qualifying status of plans (like mine) not written to the new one-size-fits-all low-deductible definitions. Which definition already includes, I note, things useless to me and mine such as maternity care. And which definition, should it become law, is certain to come under intense legislative pressure for expansion into silly mandatory coverages as seen in some of the states, such as for Viagra and hair plugs. Any additional initially-non-listed benefits are, of course, to be determined by a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” appointed by the pols, and approved by the Sec’y of HHS as same sees fit, with the Comptroller General riding herd on cost decisions — and on the appointment of much of the Committee. Heh.

It’s a government takeover aimed at eventually producing a single-payer system, period. Once begun, it will inevitably grow, not shrink, as all government uber-structurres do. We know what the desired endpoint is for those who pushed it into being. They’ve told us. Repeatedly.

My apologies for the above post….I always type in what Im really feeling then edit it out……..I forgot to edit this……Obama and the democrats are insane IDIOTS and are unpatriotic aholes to place this kind of burden on this nation in the midst of the worst recession in our HISTORY……

You guys are welcome to remove that as its over the top….even though its what I and millions of other tea party expressers are actually feeling right now.

Jason,
When someone makes a specific claim about what a bill will do, not might do something but will do something, is it not reasonable to ask for proof of that claim?

First, the bill is so large and complex as to beg questions about what may be concealed within, especially since no one was given time to read it prior to the votes on it.

That is an entirely reasonable line of attack. Most bills are overlong and arcanely worded and this bill is certainly a striking exemplar of that failing.

it is reasonable to suspect that provisions have been inserted for that purpose

Thousands of people are combing through the bill, including partisans and special interest groups on both sides, if it is there it will be found and publicized.

because previous drafts of many Democratic bills have in fact included provisions that banned private insurance policies

My understanding of that previous language is that it banned future “non-qualifying” plans, that is plans that did not meet the new government requirements for health insurance plans. ie If the requirement was that all plans must cover birth control, no new plan that did not cover birth control would be allowed and old plans that did not cover birth control would have to add that coverage when they made any other changes.

Democrats and many of the activist networks they rely upon for policy development have lauded the Canadian and British health systems as model systems

Many more have and do laud the French system. Is it not then more likely that it is their final goal?

Sixth, the burden of proof is on the side proposing change, not the side resisting it. If your side wants health care reform, you have the primary obligation to show what IS in your proposals.

The proof of what is in the proposal is out there in black and white. It is long and awkwardly worded, as all bills seem to be, but it is there and stands as proof of what is in it.
Were I to say the bill contains provisions banning the sale of monkeys for pets, it would reasonable to ask me to prove it. How then could you prove that the bill did not have provisions to ban the sale of monkeys for pets? The only avenue I see in that case would be for you to ask me to point to the specific provision(s) that banned monkey sales. You could then read that provision and either see that it did indeed ban monkey sales or argue that the provision did not ban monkey sales for reason X. Isn’t that how this process it supposed to work?
If on the other hand I were to say that the bill is so long and complex that it may contain provisions to ban the sale of monkeys for pets I would not own the burden of proof.

Tully,
If you have found these specific problems with the bill why not supply a page number along with the problem?

the substitution of Physician Assistants in place of “attending physicians” in ordering post-hospital services

Depending on the wording that sounds like a good idea that could cut costs without lowering the standard of care. The role of PAs should be expanded to provide a greater supply of quality care.

the “payment adjustments” for post-acute care services and home health care

How does this bill change the payment adjustments and review process?

Re: the Health Choices Commissioner
Assuming it is much the same as the previous version there is this
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/health-choices-commissioner-does-not-decide-your-h/

I’ll add, that not only does the side proposing change have the burden of what you wrote above, they *ALSO* hold the burden of answering in good faith any and all criticisms and questions. THEY are under the spotlight, not us.

This is not even the worst recession in the latter half of our history. It is among the worst, but the 1930s have it beat by a long shot.

That was a depression. This is a recession. You stand corrected.

They likely will.

They likely will is hardly an acceptable response for our criticisms of this bill and its impact.

They likely will hardly represents concise and accurate rebuttals to our concerns. They likely will is what I heard when the GOP said that the Iraqis would drop their arms and embrace as as liberators.

They likely will……..translated……we have our fingers crossed.

That there are many things that could be done with a 100 page bill that would correct much of what ails our health care system without bankrupting America and the collective states except for Wyoming. Oh wait….Obama wants to bankrupt them as well with his carbon tax and his stated goal(caught on tape during an interview) at destroying the coal industry.

I stand corrected. Unimpeded the democrats with a cheering Obama will bankrupt all 50 states and in the meantime the printing presses just keep printing money. Forcing the world to replace the dollar with the Euro or the Yuan.

Meanwhile our favorite little radicals in Washington DC, have their blinders on, their heads lowered and their hands firmly over their ears as they rush pell mell ahead with the destruction of the American Economy in the midst of a massive recession.

Republicans for Blue Dogs.

Assuming it is much the same as the previous version

You make entirely too many assumptions, Jeb, which is the natural result of your willful and ongoing failure to do any real research of your own, and your self-proclaimed utter ignorance of the ACTUAL contents of the bill. Try actually reading the bill yourself. I suggest you start with the TABLE OF CONTENTS, which you have apparently been unable to locate despite its prominent placement at the beginning of the document.

Yes, Jeb, you seem to be missing that the “role and responsibilities of the Health Choices Commissioner” remain quite vague and open to dramatic expansion through bureaucratic interpretation. Given the concerns that have been expressed about this specific element, the refusal to put in further clarifications and protections against potential abuse is a good indication that the supporters of the bill WANT to leave open the option for exactly the kind of expansion of HCC authority that critics are concerned about.

Actually, since these concerns have been pointed out to you many, many times and you have consistently refused to even respond with anything other than repeating your supposed confusion as to what the other side could even be talking about, “missing” is probably the wrong descriptor and your refusal to respond honestly is better perceived as intentional bad faith on your part.

“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

Sincerely Barak Obama.

Thats right Mr. President. So why are you wanting to pass cap and tax? National healthcare and next year immigration reform that will LEGALIZE 12 million more POOR people that we have to subsidize with more entitlements?