|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 23, 2009 13:42:11 GMT -5
Well, I think it's pretty much understood that we aren't getting a public option in any real sense. www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/the_public_option_dead_end.php#more?ref=fpblgSo what that means is we're going to get forced to buy insurance from the insurance companies. And if you're one of the lucky few that actually have access to the "public" option, you'll pay more for it than you would if you went to the insurance cos. This bill is a winner for sure!
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 23, 2009 13:56:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Nov 23, 2009 14:29:28 GMT -5
Saw an article on MSN this morning about the growing number of "Boutique" practices springing up. Doctors seem to be actively working to simply avoid dealing with insurance companies at all, if they can, by setting fee structures and charging an annual fee for "non-insurance" care. I think we'll see far more rationing of care going forward, based on whether or not a patient has insurance, AND whether or not they can afford a boutique primary care doctor. This will likely throw a major wrench in the works for the current "reform" bill, since it makes the requirement for insurance purchase into just a misbegotten tax, payable to private enterprise. Or am I not understanding something... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33863680/ns/health-health_care
|
|
|
Post by grumpytoo on Nov 23, 2009 16:17:38 GMT -5
The important thing is to get something passed on which to build. Exactly. Nothing this big happens overnight. The first Civil Rights Act passed in 1866, the most recent one in 1991. So you think there may be meaningful healthcare legislation by 2090? I'm sorry I don't think bad legislation that lets everyone say "we took care of that" is better than no legislation. I think there needs to be a good bill out there, preferably single payer but at least a strong public option that is available, and make the legislators vote on it, not on some innocuous turd that doesn't do much of anything. What about Obamas' promise to veto any bill that added to the deficit? This thing sure looks like it will. No cost containment at all. --chris
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 23, 2009 16:54:47 GMT -5
Saw an article on MSN this morning about the growing number of "Boutique" practices springing up. Doctors seem to be actively working to simply avoid dealing with insurance companies at all, if they can, by setting fee structures and charging an annual fee for "non-insurance" care. I think we'll see far more rationing of care going forward, based on whether or not a patient has insurance, AND whether or not they can afford a boutique primary care doctor. This will likely throw a major wrench in the works for the current "reform" bill, since it makes the requirement for insurance purchase into just a misbegotten tax, payable to private enterprise. Or am I not understanding something... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33863680/ns/health-health_careOnce my income improves I'm thinking about joining this one: www.qliance.com/ and carrying some sort of catastrophic plan. It will depend on the numbers/coverage vis a vis whatever coverage I'm offered at work.
|
|
|
Post by fathawk on Nov 23, 2009 21:19:36 GMT -5
Wise man once said..."foot in the door..equals, foot in the door"
Might be a shit sandwich, but it's all we got right now.
I guess the only option is to push for the outright SOCIALIZZMS!!!
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 23, 2009 21:40:07 GMT -5
Saw an article on MSN this morning about the growing number of "Boutique" practices springing up. Doctors seem to be actively working to simply avoid dealing with insurance companies at all, if they can, by setting fee structures and charging an annual fee for "non-insurance" care. I think we'll see far more rationing of care going forward, based on whether or not a patient has insurance, AND whether or not they can afford a boutique primary care doctor. This will likely throw a major wrench in the works for the current "reform" bill, since it makes the requirement for insurance purchase into just a misbegotten tax, payable to private enterprise. Or am I not understanding something... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33863680/ns/health-health_careI've had three docs try -- and fail -- to do this.
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 24, 2009 12:08:34 GMT -5
Wise man once said..."foot in the door..equals, foot in the door" Might be a shit sandwich, but it's all we got right now. I guess the only option is to push for the outright SOCIALIZZMS!!! That's pretty much what I'm gonna do from now on. Straight Socialist ticket.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 25, 2009 11:54:43 GMT -5
Wise man once said..."foot in the door..equals, foot in the door" Might be a shit sandwich, but it's all we got right now. I guess the only option is to push for the outright SOCIALIZZMS!!! The "foot" was "put in the door" in 1965 when medicare was passed. So how much wider is the door open 45 years later? I mean i have heard of the "soft sell" but, dude---this is ridiculous! ;D If the 'foot in the door' argument is all health reform supporters have got (and really it is all they got at this point) then it is past time to go reflect on your failure to legislate real reform and get back to the drawing board...
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 26, 2009 12:35:51 GMT -5
Wise man once said..."foot in the door..equals, foot in the door" Might be a shit sandwich, but it's all we got right now. I guess the only option is to push for the outright SOCIALIZZMS!!! The "foot" was "put in the door" in 1965 when medicare was passed. So how much wider is the door open 45 years later? I mean i have heard of the "soft sell" but, dude---this is ridiculous! ;D If the 'foot in the door' argument is all health reform supporters have got (and really it is all they got at this point) then it is past time to go reflect on your failure to legislate real reform and get back to the drawing board... Medicare was for seniors. That isn't a fair comparison. We're trying to cover the entire population of the country. BIG diff. Try again, Kit.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 26, 2009 14:21:08 GMT -5
So what "it was for seniors"? How exactly did that single provision, eminently subject to revision, restrict this gov't insurance program from expanding its "toe in the door" of the corp insurance monopoly beyond that (for 40 freakin' years)? 65 is just a number after all. In fact-- this current reform drill all started out as exactly that; an expansion of medicare to non-seniors. Which "toe-in-the-door" (the first attempt at significant expansion since the program was created) was stomped flat by corp interests & corp politicians and in favor of what? Another pseudo/faux/PR proclaimed "foot-in-the-door" program which (*if* it passes) is set to be just another corporate run program with virtually nothing to do with gov't other than in name. Oh and BTW...:
White House health-care adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration was pleased with the House bill and the one emerging in the Senate. She described the Medicare savings in both bills -- about $500 billion under the Senate approach and $400 billion in the House version -- as the first serious effort to restrain the entitlement program's growth since the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. --WaPo
IOW, the primary cost cutting is aimed not at corps--it is aimed straight at the sole successful public medical system in existence in this country. And people buy the spin that this reform benefits them? Just "wow."
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 27, 2009 0:19:21 GMT -5
The "foot" was "put in the door" in 1965 when medicare was passed. So how much wider is the door open 45 years later? I mean i have heard of the "soft sell" but, dude---this is ridiculous! ;D If the 'foot in the door' argument is all health reform supporters have got (and really it is all they got at this point) then it is past time to go reflect on your failure to legislate real reform and get back to the drawing board... Medicare was for seniors. That isn't a fair comparison. We're trying to cover the entire population of the country. BIG diff. Try again, Kit. And the solution to covering the entire population isn't to expand on Medicare. You know, use that "foot in the door." The plan is to dictate to you that you must purchase health insurance from the same corporate assholes that got us here in the 1st place. "Foot in the door" is code for "complete failure to change anything while getting rolled by the corporations."
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 27, 2009 11:09:29 GMT -5
The plan is to dictate to you that you must purchase health insurance from the same corporate assholes that got us here in the 1st place. "Foot in the door" is code for "complete failure to change anything while getting rolled by the corporations." I'll betcha that's not the way it'll wind up being. I think it's a joke and I don't think it'll play in Peoria. There's no way to enforce it, for openers. Don't forget, we've got a way to go on this thing. Nothing is law yet, you know.
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 27, 2009 11:12:53 GMT -5
Exactly. Nothing this big happens overnight. The first Civil Rights Act passed in 1866, the most recent one in 1991. So you think there may be meaningful healthcare legislation by 2090? I'm sorry I don't think bad legislation that lets everyone say "we took care of that" is better than no legislation. I think there needs to be a good bill out there, preferably single payer but at least a strong public option that is available, and make the legislators vote on it, not on some innocuous turd that doesn't do much of anything. What about Obamas' promise to veto any bill that added to the deficit? This thing sure looks like it will. No cost containment at all. --chris That's why there eventually be a viable and strong public option. There can't be cost containment without some limitation on what the "providers" charge and what the insurers demand in premiums.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 27, 2009 11:41:24 GMT -5
Somebody said "civil rights"? That's really a ridiculous comparison. Why? Civil rights didn't have (never has had, never will have) billions of corp profit riding on it. Health care does. That's why movement on this issue (to date and into the foreseeable future) has been all one-way--towards sustained and ever swelling corp bank accounts.
|
|