Wow who knew that this was so easily discernible? My tailor has some nice brown shirts and arm bands to fit me with.

[/quote]

No, I'm not saying that at all and I'm not sure how you gleaned that from what I posted.

Even if that was the case, helping the 1% would do more for the country than the trillion dollars we've flushed down the hole in Iraq so there's that.

China's rise is fascinating to non-historians as well.

No, I'm not saying that at all and I'm not sure how you gleaned that from what I posted.

Even if that was the case, helping the 1% would do more for the country than the trillion dollars we've flushed down the hole in Iraq so there's that.[/quote]

The proposed legislation covers most of the uninsured gap from my understanding. The biggest problem facing the bill is determining exactly how to pay for it. I'm not meaning this in the republican "I AIN'T PAYING FOR THE LAZY" but in the practical logistics.

I dunno, I think a surprising amount of those people are white, male landowners.

The proposed legislation covers most of the uninsured gap from my understanding. The biggest problem facing the bill is determining exactly how to pay for it. I'm not meaning this in the republican "I AIN'T PAYING FOR THE LAZY" but in the practical logistics.[/quote]

Closing the uninsured gap could be done for far less than "less than 1 trillion" which is the only thing the Blue Dogs have gotten concessions for.

I think it's pretty obvious this is a boondoggle, noble intentions be damned.
And say what anyone will, but if the economy rises as predicted, the main factor will have been, in fact, the bailouts...

I'm not against healthcare reform, but I am against almost everything just for the sake of it.

All I want is someone to explain how or why this is good for healthcare, the economy, the country, or even drug companies...everyone's fer it, they just don't know quite what they's fer, 'round here.

I think moving forward if the US of A wants to keep its place as an industrial nation (probably not possible but we can probably slow the erosion), we're going to have to move the burden off of the employer to provide healthcare. The proposed plan moves the responsiblity to the individual (at least in a sense).

The problem is you can't increase coverage without increasing costs unless you change the delivery system. It's pretty simple. People want a magic bullet where we get everything we have now and more but that costs less. That's just not going to happen; pure fantasy. So, either we have to change the way the system works, raise taxes to cover more people with a new public program or change the way we deliver health care. Sadly, too much power held in the government by pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies makes changing the delivery system very, very difficult, perhaps impossible.

Add in that while people always say they want change, when that change affects their normal routine, the vast majority of people who have adequate health care are more afraid of losing what they have than ensuring universal access for everyone, even as they watch their benefits dwindle and their costs go up. Fear of the unknown is strong.

Whole thing's a clusterfuck, really. Most likely, we'll get some half assed too expensive bill that tries to please everyone but spends too much money pleasing no one.

And I still like Obama, but rolling over for the drug companies, increasing total troops in the middle east when you look at Afganastan and Iraq together and basically being far too quick to give in and try for a fast compromise rather than stick to his guns that won him an election isn't making it easy.

yeah

I'm for it because when health care reform was defeated in the 90's we were told by the insurers and pharma and the people who opposed reform that things would get better if it was left alone: that has been a total and abject failure. What we now have is the most expensive healthcare in the world that lags far behind in quality of care. Instead of improving, things have gone the other way.

We are better than this.

Edit: Also what Tanner said.

Where are you getting your facts and figures from?

I agree with what DW said, though. I just think this doing something for the sake of doing it and won't change the inherent problems with the system. Whatever, they will regroup and it will pass or fail on its on merits or buyoffs to specific congressmen with needs in their districts. Everyone will rage and nothing will change.

As a business owner now, I have to ask; could you even think of offering health care coverage when the time comes to add some employees? And not to pry, but given that FemGar was/is in the health care/business field am I right in assuming that that's where your coverage is coming from now?
If so, good on ya, but what would your business bottom line look like if you had to take care of that expense?

Premiums were going up about 15% a year for the last several years at my old employer. I don't know if that's typical or not, but there's no way that's tenable for the overall economy. And if we're phasing out of the glory days of employer provided health care (I used to say I was born 20 years too late with regard to being a journalist but it's true in all things, it seems) then for the good of the republic we've got to move into some new paradigm to keep people from bleeding to death at accident scenes.

I don't know that what's being formulated right now is the best or even a good response to the looming cliff up ahead but something's got to change. If we get it even close to right the first time, that'll be a victory.

See, I get all of that. I also don't buy the canard that premiums are going up because people don't use their care right, etc... It has to do with them being greedy pigs who collude and have a veritable monopoly.

I don't have a single solution here, I just have a feeling that with this bill none of that will actually change.

And I say that because all I hear on one side is "Barry gon' kill us" and from the other side "this has to happen" - neither of which are reasonable or acceptable arguments to anyone who isn't mainlining Kool Aid.

we'll eventually go to a single payer system somewhere down the line so I wish we'd just bit the bullet and do it now. all this stuff we are talking about with this current bill is fine, and it will provide some coverage for those without coverage, but I don't see that it will much to really reduce overall bureaucracy and costs.

Which drains 1000% more than uninsured folks visiting ERs.

Yail Bloor, Cotton, Kingfish: 28
Senator: 9

Consider it a koan.

Why not let a government plan be a choice with private providers? Isn't it all about competition?

And why can we mandate car insurance, but not health insurance?

Doing "nothing" is guaranteed catastrophe. Get health care off of employers, contain costs, focus on prevention and efficiency? Tell how this is wrong?

From what I've learned, the biggest hole in the plan is that this review board/panel/whatever-the-fuck-they're -calling-it has no actual power. So, it'll make suggestions to reduce costs, but at the end of day there's no real reason for these suggestions to be adopted.

I think a drastic overhaul would be misguided because for better or worse health care is a legacy system. We're not really in a place to throw the whole thing out and start anew. But this is a first step. The longest journey starts with one step.

From off the top of my head although this is a pretty decent summary of what I'm talking about (the international ranking of our health system though comes from a report by the WHO in I believe 2000...That can be found here.

I'm not even sure I'm on a side here, and if I am, I certainly haven't scored any points. I have been personally fucked over by insurance companies more than almost anyone I know, and I hate the current system. But I think the worst possible thing that could happen is if this plan passes and doesn't really change much of anything. It'll dig a deeper hole for Obama and will pretty keep anyone from coming near it for another decade.

I don't know why a single payer plan seems so impossible. But then again, I don't know why all these bullshit concessions are being made, either. This isn't that great a plan, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd like to see a step made in any direction as long as it spurs further reform.

Medicaid's overhead is something like 3% because there's no profits to account for.

I'm fine with suppliers (pharma, docs, hospitals, equipment manufacturers etc.) getting theirs but for insurers to make more and more money for merely providing someone the hope and chance to feel good everyday and live a productive life seems backward at best and despicable in even somewhat flattering light.

Yeah, I am only a side in your mind, harry. I am just trying to get people to think about what it is they are for (or against) and share cotton's concerns.

I think this does nothing but spend money, and I think (no, fuck that, I KNOW) that the biggest chink in the armor right now is deficit spending. You can argue we shouldn't have wasted a trillion in Iraq, but we did. I am don't care how we got here, just that there might be a way forward. And no one here (or anywhere else) is really talking about a way forward.

Politically, they need to ensure this encompasses everything they ever thought of trying to do, because passing it in it's current form, single payer, or anything else labeled Healthcare Reform will defeat 10 current congressman and reality as it is in the senate cost seats that they can pick up...and if the Rs get recruits like Hoeven in ND, that 60 seats is gone and the House Majority becomes slimmer.

not to mention the fact that they're responsible for all of these fuckwits storming these meetings and the rumor that the new plan is Phase I of operation: Soylent Seniors

So you want us all to be,"the system sucks, the plan sucks, we need to get Obama reelected, I have no alternative but I'm sure its better"

That's a pretty easy position to take.

I think it's been a political tarbaby for 60 years for a reason. And I don't want my "Cadillac Plan" taxed.