House Dems forsake voters, pass reform bill

[SB Shock]

It's worth keeping in mind that the only bill that matters is the one that eventually comes out of conference. The Senate is the limiting factor here, so screaming about what's in the House bill is a bit like beating up a strawman

Are not the democrats changing the way rules are for bills handled in conference?

I thought there was a story a week or two that was saying the democrats were getting ready to do something (or at least considering) that would allow the house to pass their radical (or as radical as they could get) and then the senate could pass a more conservative bill - then it would go to committee and then have some type of fast track so basically they could jam down the basic house bill without a big vote and debate.

[SubGod22]

No surprises, Pelosi Bill Protects, Aids Trial Lawyers. I'm glad they don't get the final say but this really is ridiculous.

[rjl]

Here's a few facts I heard yesterday:

1. The average cost of health care for a family of four a decade ago was around $7k a year. Now, it's $12k a year, and skyrocketing. The United States is the most expensive country for health care, yet we rank somewhere around 30 in the world in the effectivity of our health care. The system is broken.

2. When you say "keep the federal government out of health care," you must realize that the federal government, between Medicare and Medicaid, is already 70% - 80% of the health care industry. Outside of larger Kansas towns like Wichita, Topeka, the KC 'burbs, and maybe Salina, without Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals would be wholly unable to function.

3. My recollection of the details isn't 100% on this, but the overall idea is correct: Years ago, the federal government built a great majority of the hospitals that exist today. Without doing so, many communities, Wichita included, wouldn't have had them until a private entity deemed it profitable. It wouldn't be profitable until there were hundreds of thousands of people living nearby, creating a terrible health care situation for the bulk of the population, which at the time was far more rural in nature.

When private entities took over the federally built hospitals, they did so on the condition that they could not refuse medical coverage to anyone, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. That continues today.

In other words, either the government or private entity pays for emergency health care for pretty much everyone already. Which means, one way or another, we all already pay for it.

The argument is then made that, over the long term, it is far cheaper to pay for preventative health care than it is to pay for major emergency health care that could have been eliminated through the aforementioned preventative care.

4. This is probably the most important point, and the one that drives the health care debate.

Ask yourself this question: Do you feel that a person should be able to get health care coverage even if they have a pre-existing condition?

If you say yes, as 80% of US citizens do, then you agree that no insurance company can turn someone down because of a pre-existing condition.

Here's the rub. If you mandate the availability of coverage for everyone, you must also mandate coverage for everyone. Why? Because if you did not mandate coverage, yet required insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, a person would wait until he was sick to get health insurance.

So since you must mandate health insurance for everyone, you must mandate the availability of health insurance for everyone. That means give people other options than only insurance-through work. That means government sanctioned health care.

[ISASO]

But if you're not enrolled in a government-approved plan and anything in your plan changes you are automatically enrolled in the government plan.

What happened to "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance."? Isn't the truth "you can keep the insurance you like until we take it away from you and throw you in jail if you don't like it." Why didn't 'Obama The Transparent One' give us the more accurate of the two statements?

If we're already paying for emergency room care for everyone, why does the new plan cost $1 trillion or more?

Why are so many critical, major aspects going to be left up to the Secretary of HHS (a bureaucrat) to determine 18 months after the plan is implemented?
Would you sign a home loan document and let the lender determine the interest rate and fees 18 months later?

How did taxpayer-funded abortion sneak back in the mix? Obama stated that would never happen but his girl Pelosi and the Emanuel Brothers had it in there.

Why are members of Congress exempt from this if it's so great? I never hear an answer to this one. Maybe it's true, George, all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

[Maggie]

Here's a few facts I heard yesterday:

1. The average cost of health care for a family of four a decade ago was around $7k a year. Now, it's $12k a year, and skyrocketing. The United States is the most expensive country for health care, yet we rank somewhere around 30 in the world in the effectivity of our health care. The system is broken.

2. When you say "keep the federal government out of health care," you must realize that the federal government, between Medicare and Medicaid, is already 70% - 80% of the health care industry. Outside of larger Kansas towns like Wichita, Topeka, the KC 'burbs, and maybe Salina, without Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals would be wholly unable to function.

3. My recollection of the details isn't 100% on this, but the overall idea is correct: Years ago, the federal government built a great majority of the hospitals that exist today. Without doing so, many communities, Wichita included, wouldn't have had them until a private entity deemed it profitable. It wouldn't be profitable until there were hundreds of thousands of people living nearby, creating a terrible health care situation for the bulk of the population, which at the time was far more rural in nature.

When private entities took over the federally built hospitals, they did so on the condition that they could not refuse medical coverage to anyone, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. That continues today.

In other words, either the government or private entity pays for emergency health care for pretty much everyone already. Which means, one way or another, we all already pay for it.

The argument is then made that, over the long term, it is far cheaper to pay for preventative health care than it is to pay for major emergency health care that could have been eliminated through the aforementioned preventative care.

4. This is probably the most important point, and the one that drives the health care debate.

Ask yourself this question: Do you feel that a person should be able to get health care coverage even if they have a pre-existing condition?

If you say yes, as 80% of US citizens do, then you agree that no insurance company can turn someone down because of a pre-existing condition.

Here's the rub. If you mandate the availability of coverage for everyone, you must also mandate coverage for everyone. Why? Because if you did not mandate coverage, yet required insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, a person would wait until he was sick to get health insurance.

So since you must mandate health insurance for everyone, you must mandate the availability of health insurance for everyone. That means give people other options than only insurance-through work. That means government sanctioned health care.

Frankly, I don’t even know where to start with this post.

[Maggie]

rjl:

With regard to your point number 1: How exactly can the government bring down the actual “cost” of health-care? Or more specifically, can you point out what is being proposed by the government that is likely to lower those “costs”. Please keep in mind, and this is important, there is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around.

With regard to your point number 2: What about the overall “health” (excuse the pun) of the government programs you mention? Are they run well? Are they efficient? Are they a model that should be used for national health-care?

With regard to your point number 3: What does the government subsidizing the construction of a hospital have to do with the health-care debate? Do the bills in Washington only address “emergency care” or am I missing something? The argument that “preventative health-care” will result in an overall cost savings is absurd on its face:

Look - preventative care and preventative practices can save lives, and so they are very worthwhile, but they will not save money. On the whole they increase the cost of health care - according to the CBO. Why? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But we don’t know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. The way government talks about preventive care it is usually necessary to provide it to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that particular illness anyway. And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.

With regard to your point number 4: You assume that insurance companies should provide coverage to individuals regardless of their condition. If insurance companies are compelled to provide that type of coverage – then that is no longer insurance. When you buy insurance you are contracting with the insurance company to share a risk – a risk that may never materialize. The consideration for this contract is as follows: (1) You pay a premium to the insurance company regardless; (2) in return for the premium the insurance company promises to pay in the event X, or Y or Z takes place. Insurance companies make money by investing the premium funds and hoping X, Y, or Z never happens.

When a pre-existing condition exists one can with reasonable certainty predict some but maybe not all future costs. Take it out of the health-care context – would you expect an insurance company to underwrite and issue a blanket policy with regard to a particular piece of property where a known pollution condition exists? I submit that an insurance company with those types of underwriting practices would not be in business very long.

You were not writing about insurance you were writing about a single payer health-care system - the private industry cannot exist under your system.

The current system may have, and does have, flaws. No one disputes that; however, are you sure the solutions you wrote about will remedy the system or will those solutions simply make it worse?

[SubGod22]

Why is Jackson still relevant at all? Props to Rep Davis for his handling of it.

[RoyalShock]

Someone should remind Mr. Jackson that a congressman represents EVERYONE in his district, not just one demographic (and one that should have no particular significance when it comes to legislation).

I won't call anybody by name but you can't make statements like that and consider yourself a leader in the fight for equal rights.

[ISASO]

From Pollster.com

Health Care Plan: Favor / Oppose

The trend started out strongly in favor of health care reform, but now the trend is currently:
Oppose 50.8%
Favor    43.9%

And the numbers keep sinking:

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

[WuDrWu]

Hopefully much of the accounting gimmickery buried in this crippling entitlement program will also be exposed for what it is so we can out this joke out to pasture permanently and get on with some real business of the people.