Health Care: Obama Adopts A Good Idea From The GOP

President Obama picked up a good idea from the Republicans at last week’s health care summit, one that will add a badly needed dose of fiscal reality to the health care bill. What’s more, this Republican idea will improve the lives of tens of millions of poor people.

It has to do with the dramatic expansion of Medicaid that is envisioned under the health care bill. Obama mentioned it among four GOP proposals that he embraced in his letter to congressional leaders on Tuesday:

3. At the meeting, Senator Grassley raised a concern, shared by many Democrats, that Medicaid reimbursements to doctors are inadequate in many states, and that if Medicaid is expanded to cover more people, we should consider increasing doctor reimbursement. I’m open to exploring ways to address this issue in a fiscally responsible manner.

Nearly half of the people who would gain coverage under this bill–15 million of the estimated 31 million newly insured people–would get it through an expansion of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Why did Congress do it this way? In part because it is cheaper, as we have written here before. The Medicaid program varies by state, but it generally pays health care providers significantly less than either private insurance or the Medicare program.

To keep the official price tag of the bill down, lawmakers have written it with an assumption that Medicaid would continue to reimburse health care providers at its current rock-bottom rates. But in the real world, that can’t happen. As many governors have pointed out, that is a totally unrealistic assumption that would only compound what is already a grave problem. In many parts of the country, it is difficult to find providers willing to accept Medicaid patients already enrolled in the program. Is it reasonable to expect that the government could add 15 million more, without raising what it pays providers to treat them?

The Republicans deserve credit here for forcing some realism into this aspect of the health care debate.

More of this, please.

Related Topics: charles grassley, fiscal realism, medicaid, Barack Obama, Health Care
  • Latest on Swampland

    At CPAC, Romney Stresses Conservative Credentials

    Three days after a trifecta of losses underlined lingering questions about his ability to win over the Republican Party’s base, Mitt Romney arrived at CPAC to allay skeptics’ fears. Throughout his second bid for the GOP nomination, Romney has made his business bona fides the centerpiece of his candidacy. But on Friday, before a packed room at the annual conservative confab, he sought to emphasize the record he compiled in Massachusetts. “I was a severely conservative governor,” he told the crowd. “I know conservatism, because I have lived conservatism.” 

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

    Mired in the Sticky Politics of Health and Faith, Obama Shifts on Contraception

    In the face of mounting pressure from Catholic leaders and politicians, the White House on Friday tweaked its position on contraception coverage mandates in the Affordable Care Act. Rather than require large religious institutions like Catholic colleges and hospitals to provide employees with free health insurance coverage for contraception, insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the tab.

  • gysgt213

    KT- What’s “isnrued people?”

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    it’s a very rare illness that most insurance policies exclude as a pre-existing condition. :) (Thanks. will fix.)

  • gysgt213

    KT-Do not the states share the cost of Medicaid with the federal govt? And have not a awful lot of states not been able to come up with their end for some time now?

  • gysgt213

    Thanks KT-I hate to correct some one elses’ spelling since I can’t spell a lick myself. That’s besides the fact I don’t know a lot fancy words that’s why I thought I would check.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    It varies dramatically. I’m told by Waxman’s people that reimbursement rates for a well baby visit in California are so low (I don’t recall the exact figure, but it was something like $7) that many pediatricians don’t even bother to put in for them. It costs more to file the paperwork than they get from the reimbursement. They just eat the cost of treatment. Do you really think you can expect them to do that for an additional 15 million people?
    .
    And in Maryland, there was a famous case in the past few years where a child died of an abcessed tooth in part because his mom couldn’t find a dentist who would take medicaid.

  • gysgt213

    KT-I think I didn’t ask my question correctly. My question is how many state budgets can afford an expansion in the roles like this no matter how low the reimbursement rate?

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    You are absolutely right, and that is one reason why Governors of both parties have such reservations about this bill. Kate and I wrote about that here:
    .
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1952147,00.html

  • homerhk

    “Nearly half of the people who would gain coverage under this bill–15 million of the estimated 31 million newly insured people–would get it through an expansion of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program”

    Thanks so much for this information KT, since even though I have been reading about the healthcare bill for months now, this statistic has never really been clearly stated in news articles. Does this put to rest to some degree the complaint that all this bill does is force customers to purchase insurance and fill insurance company coffers?

    Surely, even without the individual mandate to purchase insurance the expansion of medicaid and Children’s health insurance program would constitue one of the most massive expansions of medical care to the uninsured in the US in decades? I really can’t see why – if this is the case – there are people who think this is a crappy bill.

  • carotexas1

    Karen do you know how they will compensate for the extra cost of doing this?
    Is it possible that the House original strong Public Option might cover this?

  • stuartzechman

    Don’t make me get up and dance.

  • homerhk

    Stuart, not sure what you mean, but you made me smile!

    I’d like a good bit of virtual dancing on the swampland thread!

  • gysgt213

    “As if having to pay higher health insurance premiums each year isn’t bad enough, now workers have another worry: companies that drop their health insurance coverage and don’t bother to tell employees.
    .
    It’s a practice that’s on the rise, says Kristin Milam with the state Department of Insurance. State law requires that companies give their workers 45 days notice if they’re going to drop coverage. Milam says that employees of businesses that don’t follow the law often find out their coverage has lapsed when they go to the doctor’s office.”
    .
    Mcclatchy is ran the above story yesterday.
    .
    I think at some point we are going to have to shift our thinking and decide that we just need to pay for health care on a national level. I don’t see any way around it. All these gimmicks and work arounds are not going to do anything to bring down costs. All they are going to do is make states and businesses and any one else we try to shift costs on to either flat out state that they can’t afford it or figured out more creative ways not to pay for it. And in the end we are going to lose much much more.
    .
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/02/89687/some-companies-drop-health-insurance.html

  • jeriv

    I may be wrong here, but wasn’t one of the “fixes” envisioned for the HCR bill to have the Federal Government take a much larger share of the financial expense of Medicaid?

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    jeriv: only for new recipients, which as kate explained in the story, is unfair to states that have been doing a good job of expanding coverage.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    how they pay for it is the big question. and no, the public option is not coming back — in any form. at least, not this year.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I think I will add Chuck Grassley from Iowa to a small list of Republicans I like, especially if he votes for healthcare.

    So far my list consists of:
    Abraham Lincoln
    Theodore Roosevelt
    Dwight Eisenhower
    (Gerald Ford – but just barely on my list)
    Nelson Rockefeller
    Lowell Wicker (before he left the Republicans to be an independent).

    Even if Grassley does not vote for healthcare he has more to say that “no”.
    So far Republicans seem to be holding specific and reasonable complaints behind their back so that when it passes they can attack health care for those reasons.

    At least Grassley seems to, at this moment at least (I don’t know much about him) put our country ahead of the Republican party.

  • kbanginmotown

    @homerhk: What stuart is saying is that he has, over the past year of the HCR debate, posted column-furlongs of quotes, data and links making a convincing case that the HCR bill’s lack of cost containment (that is, the US spends about $7400 per person on health care, twice that of the rest of the industrialized world) makes it, indeed, a crappy bill.

  • kevin

    OT, but this op-ed from John Boehner is terrific:
    .
    http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/my_constituents_care_way_more

  • carotexas1

    Thank you Karen, I could not resist bringing this up as it is a simple answer to financing health care. No taxes required.

  • kbanginmotown

    @stuart: Since your next missive is in the works, I’ll use this lull to ask whether low Medicare Reimbursement rates are a means to the end of reducing medical costs?
    .
    Or, is the MR structure too chaotic to systemically bring down rates?

  • homerhk

    what about the proposed new regulatory regime?

    what about Gruber’s analysis on cost containment in the senate bill?

  • diecash1

    Chuck “Those death panels will kill Grandma” Grassley?
    ..
    You may wish to rethink your crush……

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Death panel propaganda?
    Okay.
    He is off the list.

  • newfreedomblog

    President Obama will urge Congress today to use Reconciliation to pass healthcare reform in his speech. ABC News reporter, Jack Tapper reports on the details of what Obama will say today.
    .
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-democrats-will-use-reconciliation-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.html
    .
    See more of the truth and what over 76% of Americans think; http://www.newfreedomblog.com
    .
    “Kill the Bill”

  • destor23

    I’m not sure why these payments need to be increased or why we should leave it to doctors to decide whether or not they want to “accept” Medicare payments. Just force them to, as a condition of doing business. If they don’t like it I suppose they can move to Canada.

  • diecash1

    Short video of this douche playing the “death panel” card; it’s one of many.
    ..

  • diecash1

    The only truth people will discover is that you’re an idiot Rusty……….you may now resume blogwhoring.

  • nflfoghorn

    “What is truth?” — Pilate

  • kbanginmotown

    LOL! Thanks for the link, kevin. Well worth the read.

  • kevin

    Good Lord, Rachel Maddow lit into Orrin Hatch and the Washington Post for that chock-full-of-lies op-ed piece he ran the other day.
    .
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/022674.php
    .
    I’m stunned to see someone in the media actually fact-check these people on such obvious bald-faced lies. Amazing.

  • nflfoghorn

    Raise taxes to cover everything. It’s so simple, right?

  • square1

    Medicaid not Medicare.

  • afguy

    About as simple as cutting taxes to solve every problem we have…

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I hope everybody knows that “end of life” in one draft of the bill was for hospices including those run by Catholic and other Christian organizations being nursing homes specifically for the terminally ill with prettier surroundings, more personalized care, more family visits and, for the religious ones, more time to pray and not – as Catholics are vehemently against among other groups – encouraging or permitting euthanasia.

    Shameless scare tactics from Republicans getting huge donations from health insurers made them decide to take the words “end of life” counseling and started making up outright lies about euthanasia.

    Once again in case anybody here believes the propaganda, “end of life care” are specialized nursing homes WITHOUT EUTHANASIA and more FAMILY AND PRAYING.

    He is now down there on my list with Sara Palin among the brain dead.

    Sorry for the momentary praise.

  • newfreedomblog

    These are the vulnerable Democrats in Congress who represent Majorty Republican Districts. Call them or Fax to “Kill the Bill” on healthcare reform.
    .
    Mitchell 202-225-2190, Fax 202-225-3263,
    Giffords 202-225-2542, fax 202-2250378,
    Grayson 202-225-2176, Fax 202-225-0999,
    Schauer 202-225-6276, Fax 202-225-6271,
    Porter, 202-225-5456, Fax 202-225-5822,
    Arcuri 202-225-3665, Fax 202-225-1891,
    Kilroy, 202-225-2015, Fax 202-225-3529,
    Dahlkemper 202-225-5406, Fax 202-225-3103,
    Carney, 202-225-3731, Fax 202-225-9594,
    Perriello, 202-225-4711, Fax 202-225-5681,
    Kirkpatrick, 202-225-2315, Fax 202-226-9739,
    Hill 202-225-5315, Fax 202-226-6866,
    Titus 202-225-3252, Fax 202-225-2185
    Hall, 202-225-5441, Fax 202-225-3289,
    Diehaus, 202-225-2216, Fax 202-225-3012,
    Kanjorsky, 202-225-6511, Fax 202-225-0764,
    Maffei 202-225-3701, Fax 202-225-4042,
    Mollohan 202-225-4172, Fax 202-225-7564,
    Rahall 202-225-3452, Fax 202-225-9061,
    Kagen 202-225-5655, Fax 202-225-5729,
    Berry 202-225-4076 Fax 202-225-5602,
    Spratt, 202-225-5501, Fax 202-225-0464,
    Space, 202-225-6265, Fax 202-225-3394
    Cao 202-225-6636, Fax 202-225-1988
    .

  • kevin

    The “end of life” counseling provision was originally put in there at the insistence of Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson.
    .
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/more_on_isakson_and_end-of-lif.html
    .
    He strongly backed it until Palin started the “death panel” nonsense, and then he did a complete U-turn and started denouncing Democrats for doing what he asked them to do.
    .
    Beyond pathetic.

  • kevin

    Good idea. Be sure to start with flaming liberal Alan Grayson, and then spend a lot of time harrassing Joseph Cao, who’s actually a Republican.

  • http://www.124monkeys.com Sean DeCoursey forgot his password

    Dude, Cao’s a Republican and already said he was voting against the Senate version. Funny you put his name on there though.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    nflfoghorn,

    I hate it when Republicans use anachronisms.
    When Jesus Christ was on death row on Good Friday, what do you think he text messaged George Washington and Thomas Jefferson about healthcare?

    If you wish to make use of religious principals, think of the ones which transcend time such as COMPASSION.

    Thomas Jefferson, for example, was NOT CHRISTIAN. He was DEIST and called Christianity a PERVERSIAN.

    Oh, I forgot, right wing Christians do not equate crucifiction with the death penalty.

    So, please try to imagine what is more compassionate: sick working poor people like Walmart employees (among many others) have a terrible time getting even basic health care or even the poorest get health care in a system which may be imperfect?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    nflfoghorn,

    From what has been discussed so far, it seems incredibly likely that your health insurance premiums will go down.
    If your health insurance premiums go down and your taxes – if that is how it is going to be handled – goes up by the same amount but more people get covered (compassionately) why is that, for you, a crime against humanity?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Who would Jesus deny medical coverage to?

  • stuartzechman

    “cost containment” is a euphemism, homerhk.
    .
    It means “slow the rate of growth of costs to somebody,” not “lower the price of something for everybody.”
    .
    If you tell an economist to run models that help determine which policy might help “contain cost,” and that economist says “Look, we can do it this way!,” then, sure, you can claim success, if you define your policy goals down in this way.
    .
    When the Bush Administration was still refusing to admit any kind of failure whatsoever regarding their Iraq policy, they would point to a particular town or section of a province, and they would tell reporters “our brave troops have begun to contain the violence,” show charts with statistics demonstrating that this was, indeed, the case. Then certain reporters would go away and write stories with ledes like “Success Around the Corner for US Troops in Iraq? Violence has begun to be contained, key statistics show.
    .
    What those statistics showed, however, was that the rate of increase of violence had slowed, not that Iraq was becoming a safe place.
    .
    Sound familiar?
    .
    Of course, because that’s the same kind of double-speak being used by this Administration to define “success” in a way that’s achievable for them, and can be demonstrated to a press corps that hasn’t been willing to independently define what problems need solving –the same press corps that actually had to debate whether the phrase “civil war” could be applied to an Iraq in 2005 (or whether refusing to adopt that administration’s terms meant they weren’t being “objective” enough in their coverage).
    .
    “containment” is a euphemism for “make it get worse a little more slowly,” not “solve the problem.”
    .
    If the price of a Big Mac has somehow climbed to $100 a sandwich, and now people are understandably upset about it, then the solution is not to regulate McDonald’s in such a way that, by the year 2016, Big Macs will only be $130, instead of the $136 they would have cost if you had done nothing. It won’t be a successful policy, even if you can accurately claim that your policy successfully “contained costs” of Big Macs, just like the economist’s models said you would.
    .
    How did you come to accept the idea that “cost containment” was what health care reform was meant to achieve, homerhk?

  • destor23

    Thanks Square1. The point still stands though. Medicaid is out program for insuring that the poor have access to health care. I don’t have much use for doctors who refuse to participate in that. Our system helps them make a lot of money, making sure that its universally accessible should be a condition of them doing business.

  • http://www.davesromanticpiano.com durangodave

    Rachel is one of the very few people in TV news who really goes after politicians for blatant hypocrisy and has the facts to back it up. She does it to Democrats too; it’s just that the Republicans are such a target-rich environment.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    .. because it’s not People Republic of China or USSR for that matter.

    It’s slippery slope, now the govt forces doctors to see patients they don’t want to see, next they will ask you to work 18 hours a day, so that they can pay for all the nice “social programs”!

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    All these efforts by Democrats and Obama will fail, becuase they are inherently dishonest. Take this, example for the WH blog, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal)

    “•It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.”

    After Obama teams false claims of keeping unemployment below 8% with Stimulus (http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf) falling on it’s face, he has very little credibility about making such outlandish claims.

    BTW, Karen as a respectable journalist should look into major mismanagement of stimulus funds as posted on Recovery.gov site. If you need help, I can help you with data analysis, as that’s what I do.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Okay, before I have to correct myself, I will make the specific comment that for that one moment in time Sen. Johnny Isakson did something I like since not all hospices are religious, that was very compassionate and bipartisan.

    Not doing my homework to find out more about him, I fear what the rest of his record looks like.

    Kevin, you did your homework.
    I just wish the rest of our class knew what homework was rather than throwing Jesus Christ at us.
    .

  • verango55

    Check out this poll on the current health care crisis.

    http://www.joelspoliticalpolls.com/health_care_bill_poll.html

  • stuartzechman

    kbanginmotown:

    [are] low Medicare Reimbursement rates are a means to the end of reducing medical costs?
    .
    Or, is the MR structure too chaotic to systemically bring down rates?

    The latter, because the state-by-state system is so unworkable.
    .
    What’s especially crappy about the extension of Medicaid to increase coverage is the system of rebates called the “Medicaid Drug Rebate Program,” (link to CMS) which works to help keep the price of drugs in the country astronomically high.
    .
    Basically, Medicaid pays a retail price for drugs, which influences the floor for the entire drug market state by state, and then gets money back from these sellers on a payment schedule, which then becomes the final price. It’s crazy. Here’s what they do:

    Created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA’90), the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires a drug manufacturer to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for states to receive Federal funding for outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid patients.
    .
    Approximately 550 pharmaceutical companies currently participate in this program. Forty nine states, (Arizona is excluded), and the District of Columbia cover drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.
    .
    As of January 1, 1996, the rebate for covered outpatient drugs is as follows:
    .
    Innovator Drugs – the larger of 15.1 % of the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) per unit or the difference between the AMP and the best price per unit and adjusted by the CPI-U based on launch date and current quarter AMP.
    .
    Non-innovator Drugs – 11 % of the AMP per unit.

    Did you catch that?
    .
    “Innovator Drugs,” drugs in which the patent has changed in some way, have a larger percentage of their price rebated back to the states than “Non-innovator Drugs.” Just think about the perverse incentives that system creates.
    .
    The means to an end of reducing medical costs are to take the lunatic price control mechanisms we have in the public sector –especially the awful Medicaid– which make up 40% of all health care spending, and make them transparent and sane.
    .
    This bill does nothing of the kind, though. It “expands coverage” by increasing Medicaid enrollment.
    .
    Let’s get one thing perfectly clear: Medicaid is welfare.
    .
    Unlike Medicare, which is an entitlement that all Americans who have paid taxes receive as a benefit of citizenship, while Medicaid is a state-by-state, means-tested welfare program usurally administered by each state’s favored private insurers, that puts patients into managed care regimes:

    During the 1990s, many states received waivers from the Federal government to create Medicaid managed care programs.
    .
    Under managed care, Medicaid recipients are enrolled in a private health plan, which receives a fixed monthly premium from the state. The health plan is then responsible for providing for all or most of the recipient’s healthcare needs.
    .
    Today, all but a few states use managed care to provide coverage to a significant proportion of Medicaid enrollees. Nationwide, roughly 60% of enrollees are enrolled in managed care plans.[19] Core eligibility groups of poor children and parents are most likely to be enrolled in managed care, while the aged and disabled eligibility groups more often remain in traditional “fee for service” Medicaid.

    “Providing coverage” by extending Medicaid in this fashion is one of the worst policy ideas I can think of.
    .
    It’s shocking, actually.

  • destor23

    @darkskinned: private interests ask me to work 18 hour days all the time.

  • Art Pepper

    Now the GOP will have to oppose this idea too!

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @destor23

    .. yeah, but they ask and not force, right? You always have an option to walk away!

    You are talking about forcing doctors in your original comment. Hopefully, you see the difference.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    I don’t think republicans are against most of the provisions of the bill. It’s just that, they are against the fuzzy math and outlandish claims.

    I guess, honesty is too much to ask of politicians these days!

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    darkskinned,

    Americans work MORE HOURS than those countries with national healthcare, not LESS.
    We work 1,777 hours per year.
    Here is a source for that:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

    If there is a “slippery slope” towards being like Europe, as a part of our liberal policies we will keep on getting offered more and more vacation time by our employers.

    Homework, people! Do your homework!

  • lcky9

    If there are any TAXES either direct or indirect, any mandates, a national data base for medical records, or any more intrusion of the IRS the answer should be NO.. time for a REDO entirely..

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @patricksartor

    .. that’s why Europe’s productivity sucks. I will take less taxes with more hours any day over a Europe-like system.

    Why doesn’t Obama or any liberal politician ever run on a platform of turning US into Europe?

  • stuartzechman

    Europe’s productivity sucks
    .
    Right.
    .
    Germany’s productivity is legendary for how much it sucks.

  • calkate

    @darkskinned – if we are working more hours for our output, we are not more productive. You should spend a little time in Europe. They are ahead of us in every way. What the heck is a “European like system”, anyhow? A capitalist system with a social safety net? Sounds like ours. Except most of Europe (I am excluding the new EU members) do it better – in other words, get more for less.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    darkskinned,
    If Republican obstructionism in health care was only about universal healthcare being, arguably, over sold or optimistic assessments on how much of a net national savings we would have (uninsured sick people not working is costly to the country) then we would have tons of Republican amendments to correct errors and so on.

    In a good bipartisan environment, one party sells and idea and the other party cools down the hype and amends it until it works.

    These are fear mongerers.
    Conservatism went from being nearly the only ideology eighty years ago into now being on the ropes after the last election.

    In order to gain victories in elections, the Republicans want to tell you that there are Terrorists on your terraces and death panels in your doctor’s office.

    I’m nerdy enough to have found a civilized honest discussion about the details interesting enough to blog about.

    (By the way, that’s the N-word for people above average IQ. If somebody who doesn’t have an IQ says that to me, We’ve got to step outside and have math competition to the death – so don’t go there or I might even include US History.)

  • earljr1

    You have hit the nail on the head, darkskinned. I am a physician and yes, there are many provisions in this bill that are workable. We are almost unanimous in our feelings that health care needs an overhaul, but it needs to be systematic and carefully thought through. (in other words, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water) There is MUCH to like about our system and what isn’t working, can be fixed. I am a trauma surgeon, so unlike most of my colleagues, do not face the dilemma of overcrowded waiting rooms and mountains of paperwork that confront them every single day. My patients usually arrive in the ER, victims of accidents and the usual carnage of life on the streets.This present health care bill is overly complicated, but fixable. Democrats MUST address some of the issues brought to the table by Republicans and hopefully, they will. If not, I foresee a potential disaster in the making.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    darkskinned
    Norway – which is so liberal Denis Kucinich would have to run as a conservative (I am not exaggerating) – among a few other developed countries have higher per capita Gross Domestic Product than the United States does.
    Hence, more pay per person for fewer hours.
    Productivity, a scale usually ignored by economists, is defined by the value of one’s work per hour. It is my best understanding that most of these countries have higher per hour productivity.
    Even then, those numbers bounce all over the place for many reasons.

    As I mentioned in an unrelated matter the other day, an American can live one thousand miles away from a foreign border or an ocean. Due to having a huge population as well to produce out own goods, services and entertainment, imported or exported goods is a much smaller percentage of the economy. Americans do not need to know and, therefore, rarely have detailed knowledge of the rest of the world despite being the most dominant power.
    So, what does European mean? Wearing shorts with suspenders (Parts of Germany); wearing a french beret with effeminate accents; speaking like the Swedish chef in the Muppet Show (I may be dating myself with that one)?

    So, piece by piece the things liberals consider best about European countries (not any of the above) like health care, strong labor unions, better high school education, free college and are introduced.

    Republican Theodore Roosevelt was the first one to bring up mimicking German national healthcare in the US about one hundred years ago.

    With conservative opposition like this for just one aspect of an easier lifestyle in Europe, running on all of those things at once is something I doubt even Kucinich’s liberal constituents would go for.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @calkate

    I have lived first 26 years of my life in India and next 4 in Paris.

    You have no idea, what a ticking timebomb France and British social situation is because of high taxes and socialistic policies. Don’t get me started on fcucked up Indian system.

    American liberals have know idea how their idea society and govt is gonna destroy this country.

    In Hyderabad, Pune and Delhi terrorist bombings are almost a regular monthly afair, people treat them as inevitable events. Govt just doesn’t do anything, they have vested interest in muslim appeasement policies for getting more votes.

    I think Obama and the Democrats are learning fast from the the third world failed democracies/ broken political systems.

    @patricksartor

    You shouldn’t compare Norway with the US. A comparison with China will more appropriate. BTW, do you know in Kuwait, healthcare is free (provided by the govt) and there is no income taxes. Why don’t you look into that as an example of what we can do here ! talk about ignorant Americans.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    “In order to gain victories in elections, the Republicans want to tell you that there are Terrorists on your terraces and death panels in your doctor’s office.”

    Ha.ha.. and you think the Democrats are tring to fix the “healthcare problem” … Anything politicians do is always to win the next election, it has nothing to do for the “good of the people” , as they will have you believe. Democrats, Republicans – they are all thieves.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @patricksartor

    Allah would deny coverage to all kafirs!

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Switzerland Natural Resources: Water.
    Per capita GDP: $41,600
    Source CIA fact book online

    US Per capita GDP: $38,206

    US Natural resources: too much to put down in one entry.

    China is converting to a system which, against everything an economist would ever recommend and, clearly, against anything any Democrat or Swiss leader would propose had nationalized car, housing, rice, beef…

    They are in a slow conversion process from Communism.

    Saudi Arabia: 20 percent of Saudi men between the ages of 20 and 29 had no paid work.

    http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/Saudi-Arabia-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html

    Oil production actually crowds out other forms of production. I forgot the name of it, but it was studied by economists.
    You do not wish to be Saudi Arabia or Kuwait even if they were secular democracies.

    If we were proposing nationalizing all fast food, all grocery stores, all landlord owned buildings – communism – then you can compare us to China it would be like comparing a healthy US soldier to an eighty year old cancer survivor.

    Comparing developed country to developed country is the only fair thing to do because the difference outside of free healthcare and free education are far, far fewer.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Then I guess it’s best to be an atheist who doesn’t use religion to deny anybody of anything.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    darkskinned,

    Name one time Democrats held up legislation which was one hundred years in the making due to details and I will say that for that instance the Democrats are obstructionist.

    Name one time when there was something one hundred percent false like the health care “death panels” Democrats came up with and I will say that that particular time Democrats were fear mongering.
    Remember 100% false, not an exaggeration because if I listed Republican exaggerations, I would need all day.

    earljr1,

    Don’t you think that, if Republicans were proposing amendments and to clear up glitches rather than just wanting to destroy this bill.

    Ideally, I believe we should have a multi-party system, but at this moment we have two parties: Democrats and the people who go against everything Democrats say.

    That’s not good!

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    I guess, you will get to die first as you will me more kafir than a christian or a jew.

    Might help to look up a word before commenting on it!

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    I guess, you will get to die first as you will be more of a kafir than a christian or a jew.

    Might help to look up a word before commenting on it!

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @patricksartor

    If not Norway, why not Switzerland !
    I have to admit, liberals never fail to amuse me!

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    Look what your leader said not very long ago about using the majority vote to pass “major” reform:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-flashback-you-need-60-votes-get-something-significant-happen

    What you are not seeing is that both Democrats and Republicans are bad for the country, so, best thing for the people is for the govt to have less power. As you know, before long Republicans will be in power and they will try as much to do damage to the country, they already have in the past.

  • shepherdwong

    “I don’t think republicans are against most of the provisions of the bill. It’s just that, they are against the fuzzy math and outlandish claims.”
    .
    Hahahahahahaha! You mean like “tax cuts and wars will pay for themselves”, right? Good one.

  • stuartzechman

    What you are not seeing is that both Democrats and Republicans are bad for the country, so, best thing for the people is for the govt to have less power.
    .
    …So that enormous –sometimes multinational — industry and financial interests can have more power in the absence of a credibly powerful state?
    .
    Doesn’t that sound like a hacienda society to you?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I did: non-Muslim and, not a part of that search, atheists aren’t “people of the book” and, therefore, more out of reach.

    I guess you are just competing to reach the level where we can call each other the other N-word (nerd) freely.

  • shepherdwong

    “…So that enormous –sometimes multinational — industry and financial interests can have more power in the absence of a credibly powerful state?”
    .
    What our new brainwashed friend doesn’t understand is that the problem is that this is now a distinction without much of a difference. How will we ever get these anti-government zealots to realize exactly who “the government” really is? I mean, Jesus-in-an-oatmeal-cookie, they still believe it has something to do with liberals.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Darkskinned,
    The point is when there are discussions of gloom and doom about a policy, compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
    If Norway didn’t fit because it exporting instead of importing oil, then Switzerland would be another example.

    Second, name legislation which was something Republicans had been seeking year after year after year that the Democrats blocked as a parallel to healthcare.
    You just said that they voted against some parts of the Republican agenda.

    Unfortunately, when it came to the Iraq war, nearly every Democrat in congress and the Senate came in dying to assist the Republicans in a very dumb decision.
    When the Republicans regarding the Iraq war said “Please” Democrats only barely questioned them before voting along with Republicans.

    stuartzechman,
    Bulls eye!

    Republicans don’t want the government controlling your healthcare, Republicans want big business to do that without your interests in mind at all instead.

    Nine out of ten times, I believe, when Republican talking point say “you don’t want the government to…” add on “because we want big business to do it without your interests in mind instead.”

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @patricksartor

    I don’t know if you missed this, but big government is still feared more than the big business. As you can see it’s not a Fox new poll ( I know how much liberals love Fox polls)

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/117739/big-gov-viewed-greater-threat-big-business.aspx

  • stuartzechman

    How will we ever get these anti-government zealots to realize exactly who “the government” really is?
    .
    I’m working on that. It’s hard.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @stuartzechman

    “…So that enormous –sometimes multinational — industry and financial interests can have more power in the absence of a credibly powerful state?”

    Don’t be so delusional to think the govt has any power. Congress is run by the corporate donations ( Rnagel is writing the lax laws for god’s sake), who do you think write most of the bills?

    industry and financial interests can have most power, irrespective of which party is in the power, you don’t have to be a liberal to realise that, I realised that in only 6 years I’ve been in this country.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @stuartzechman

    Do you work for the big govt or the big business? Or, are you a part of 47 million (or, is it 31 million, I can never get that number right as even Obama can’t get that correct) uninsured?

  • earljr1

    Patricksor, Okay, what about the neutrality laws imposed by Democrats, that prevented FDR (who broke from his party, seeking to aid those confronted by tyranny) from taking a firmer hand in confronting Fascism. It took Pearl Harbor to bring us fighting and kicking into this conflict. Even then, we did NOT declare war on Germany. We waited until Hitler declared war on us, four days later. One can only imagine how history could have been rewritten to prevent the unimaginable “hell” suffered by millions of innocent victims, if we had only acted sooner.Your perspective is MUCH too narrow. The Republicans brought some really pertinent points to the table and they MUST be incorporated in this health care reform bill….if not, the Democrats will pay the price for ignoring the will of the American people.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @shepherdwong

    No, more like, we will insure 47 million (or is it 31 millions) uninsured and still cut deficit and cut costs..

    Good one too.

  • shepherdwong

    “…industry and financial interests can have most power, irrespective of which party is in the power, you don’t have to be a liberal to realise that…”
    .
    No, apparently you need to be a liberal to realize who to try to elect to deal with the problem. OTOH, you keep voting for Republicans.

  • stuartzechman

    Don’t be so delusional to think the govt has any power.
    .
    It does. The NSA has vast powers, for example.
    .
    Congress is run by the corporate donations ( Rnagel is writing the lax laws for god’s sake), who do you think write most of the bills?
    .
    This is true.
    .
    industry and financial interests can have most power, irrespective of which party is in the power, you don’t have to be a liberal to realise that
    .
    They can, if we let them. This is still a democracy, and the culture of this country has allowed us to take back power from a corrupt, industry-dominated state before, in even worse conditions, such as during the turn of the last century.
    .
    Do you work for the big govt or the big business?
    .
    Neither.
    .
    I work for a small but stable business as an employee (it’s the only way to afford health insurance at this point), and I am an entrepreneur, owning a tiny technology company which is somewhat successful.

  • apr2563

    Rachel and her producers do some of the best investigative journalism. She investigates what the traditional media ignores.
    She then invites those she has reported on to her program. Invariably polite and not overly dramatic, she lets them respond. They usually bury themselves.
    See C Street
    Killing Gays
    Funding of tea party

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Wendell Wilkie, like the majority of Democrats, was against our entering World War II.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie
    They were as isolationist as the Democrats at that time.
    It was inverse of Vietnam. During Vietnam almost 100% of the Republicans were Hawks and it’s tiny opposition was among Democrats.
    For World War II, almost 100% of Republicans were doves and the small number of pre-Pearl Harbor Hawks were Democrats.

    If I understand correctly, this is a comparison to Republican obstructionism right now?

    Obviously we should have been in the second world war sooner for everybody’s sake, but, Wendell Wilkie would not have helped any.
    He would have just rolled back much of the New Deal and, most economists believe, lead us back towards the depth of the Great Depression.

    I think there may be some case for sometime Democrats were obstructionists, but I do not know when after the Civil War.

    I was, also, thinking of a time when my parents were old enough to vote, not that far back.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @shepherdwong

    I don’t ( and cannot ) vote. I just follow American politics for fun. I find politicians here to be as much corrupt as back home, although, the political circus here is much more entertaining and nobody dies here on election days in “election violence”.

  • earljr1

    Not at ALL true, patricksor. Willkie’s platform was INCREASING the size of our military in preparation for the conflict he knew was coming. It is odd that you state 100% of Republicans were doves in 1940, yet they selected him as their candidate. Your American history seems a trifle fuzzy as does your blatantly partisan view of this health care reform bill.

  • diecash1

    DS —
    “I don’t know if you missed this, but big government is still feared more than the big business.”
    ..
    Perhaps you don’t realize that this is merely the result of 30 years of the idiocy of Reagan and his “government is the problem, not the solution” mantra. It certainly does not make it true. Polls are useful to garner public sentiment, not necessarily to find truth.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    @Darkskinned
    So, you are saying that you have a common unfounded phobia?

    I’ve been saying that such a fear is less called for than fear of having no congressman, senator or anybody to call when you either can not afford a doctor or have your health insurance company turning you down.

    This is why somebody called you “brainwashed”.
    I find that word really harsh.
    I would say “mistaken” and, now that your bring it up, possibly phobic.

    I was afraid of the dark when I was under five years old, I believe, but I have never feared government.

  • jtechguy

    All this name calling is what the politicians want. We pick teams and then call each other names. How about we just discuss policy on its merits?

    One important question that no one in this healthcare debate is asking is why are we not using the 50 states as the laboratories for what really works. All the Fed should be doing right now is figuring out what areas are they impeding the states from doing this. From my perspective the big things that the Fed can do is change the tax code for individuals to purchase healthcare with the same benefits as employers and maybe some kind of block grants to the states to get their plans going. Every state must come up with a plan by the end of the year. Then we review the results in 4-5 years and see what plans are working at insuring more people, controlling costs etc. The current Health Reform doesn’t even go into place for 6 years anyway.

    This seems to be a more reasonable approach, regardless of what side you are on politically. Why are we always so desperate for a one size fits all approach?

    Here is Indiana’s plan. I like some things about it. I dislike some things about it. But I think they may be moving in the right direction.
    http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/05/01/indiana-health-care-reform-amidst-colliding-values/

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    earljr1
    In other words both parties had doves and both side had hawks.
    I am a history buff, but, knowing 1940 congressional campaigns is above me, doc.
    I know Charles Lindbergh was Republican, and a supporter of Wilkie.
    That might have given me the wrong impression but, I am trying to follow how that came up.

    Is it that I appear to never be critical of Democrats?
    Is it that I do not correct myself often in my one week of being on this blog?
    Is it an example of obstructionism by one party?
    (Apparently not if both sides had hawks and both sides had doves.)

    Is it an explanation as to why Democrats were climbing all over each other to support a war in Iraq?

    Hitler was not put into power by the CIA.
    Husein was.
    The Holocaust was not paid for by Ronald Reagan (let’s use Republican terms here) forced all of us to pay for it.
    Husein gassed the Kurds in 1988 at the same time Reagan and Bush Sr. were sending him our money.
    Hitler had one of the world’s strongest militarys.
    Husein’s Iraq had mass malnutrition and shortages of both civilian and military goods and, just prior to that had been defeated by the US very easily.
    Hitler was invading other countries.
    Husein couldn’t have easily done so had he wanted to.
    Although not public knowledge in the US, the Holocaust was well documented.
    Husein’s weapons of mass destruction had been searched for by the UN several times over with none found and no reasonable reason for Husein to continue playing chicken with the US if he did have any since the consequences would be and were so dire for him.
    So, when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans placed this on top of their agenda and told the Democrats to jump, Democrats said, “How high?”

  • jtechguy

    Question #1 that needs to be answered is: Why are healthcare costs rising faster than virtually any other product or service in the US. Once we get to the cause we can offer some legitimate solutions. In my opinion you break healthcare into a few manageable discussions to get to the root of things.

    Some real questions we need to deal with:

    1. What is the role of health insurance/ What should it be?

    2. Can we increase the supply of healthcare (Docs, Nurses, PAs etc)?

    3. Who should make purchasing decisions on healthcare. Consumer, Doctor, Govt?

    4. Is an employer based system the best way to purchase coverage?

    5. How do we best help those that cannot afford healthcare and/or healthcare insurance?

    6. Could the pre-existing condition situation be made smaller by having individuals actually own their insurance vs the employer?

    7. Could it make sense to take a look at Patent laws as it relates to the Pharm industry.

    8. What is the metric for determining those who truly cannot afford it?

    9. Will a system designed from the Fed be more efficient, nimble, and as easy to adjust as allowing states to create their own plans.

    The reality is that most of the people in office today, may not even be there when the current plan is put into place. Once it is in place how nimble can the federal government really be in providing the necessary tweaks and adjustment as results from the plan are seen. Suppose your plan doesn’t work as expected (unfortunately that is the most likely outcome) is the federal government really the best place to make the continual tweeks and adjustments that will inevitably be needed regardless of the plan?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I almost forgot that Casa Blanca was made by Liberal Democrats in Hollywood.
    So, I thought that it was liberal hawks and conservative doves.
    You can see how I made that mistake considering that Hollywood was, already, overwhelmingly Democratic.

    But, what does that have to do with healthcare and why the Republicans are obstructing rather than writing Amendments.

    (Democrats should have included Amendments to stipulate that funding would only occur IF the UN supported the Iraq War – they didn’t even try).

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I wish I could find it online, but, for question #1, there was an outstanding study done which explained how with this system young people and others who, often correctly, believe that they are healthy do not buy into health insurance. This shrinks the pool to a sicker group of people and, therefore, increases costs. The process goes on and on until only people who are at the age group and circumstances most likely to need medical coverage buy health insurance.

    If somebody else can find it a link, I think it would give one of several reasons health insurance costs (not a full explanation) are going up.

    I am going sign off since I have the feeling that I have been overly dominant and have come across as either a know-it-all or bullying of opposing opinions.

    I am nice guy in real life – I promise.

  • earljr1

    Absolutely correct, jtechguy. There are a multitude of things we can do to make an already good system, even better. This thing is escalating out of control and what we may end up with could prove disastrous. A slow, systematic approach is called for here and any effort to jam it down the public’s throat before the bugs are removed….could easily break an already fragile and over worked infrastructure. I work in this environment and I promise you, the rope is getting pulled tighter and tighter. If it breaks, we ALL lose.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    earljr1
    Can you be more specific?

  • jtechguy

    Patrick,

    Couple of points to consider.

    Healthcare and Health Insurance are not the same thing. And should in some ways be looked at seperately. In my opinion the way we want health insurance to work is a big part of the problem.

    Its like saying I want car insurance. I want it to be affordable. I want it to pay for all costs related to my car (oil changes, maintenance, etc) I also don’t want to ever know the price of anything (Oil change for $100? no problem my insurance has it covered)

    Obviously this would be extremely expensive insurance. Add that to the fact that then your state says all insurance must also give you a 10 day loaner car and provide you with “free maintenance” etc etc

    This obviously makes insurance significantly more expensive. This is our system. Add on top of that that you don’t even usually select the insurer your employer did for the most part. You didn’t get to look into how their coverage compares to others, what % of claims do they reject etc.

    Your point that young people not taking insurance, makes the price for others higher is true. Probably the best way to get more young people to take it would be to lower costs. If there were $99/month high deductible plans out there more would buy in. There would still be some that would not. I don’t like that but I don’t like the mandate either so I will live with the former.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I follow the point of a deductible and/or co-payment for medications putting pressure on the consumer to spend less.
    This is, also, the reason for the tax on “Cadillac” care, as you described where the cost of care is not a function of how much health care services one uses and, therefore, does not contain costs in exchange (in this system now) for controlling costs.
    Once again, I could not find the statistic, but, medicare had, as health insurance, a larger percentage of it’s money going to doctors and care and much lower administrative costs. This, I know, is the public option. This should force private companies to be more efficient.
    With universal coverage, it seems likely to me that each and every company can expand to other markets and costs should be within the same range.
    This would lead employers to putting in front of every employee list of companies it will pay for, creating market competition.
    Also, this would be another argument for the public option. In smaller markets, there would be one other choice besides the dominant insurance company or, in larger markets, add one more to the list.
    Some arguments have been over-the-top absurd such as “death panels” and others have been a simple distaste for government without any regard for the overall well being of the country referred to in the argument.
    In imperfect markets such as utilities, governments place limitations on price hikes. Utilities are extremely unlikely to go out of business. So, I can not foresee that as a possibility unless unusually unintelligent or unwise people (less wise or intelligent than utility regulators) are placed in such a position.
    So, why is it reasonable to some that, instead of making proposals which may pass with Democratic votes, that Republicans are almost all (if not all) just voting against this system?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Also, if I had health insurance right now – which I do not – would find out if my mild upper back pain for the past twenty four hours is a function of working from home and spending nearly my entire day sitting and can be cured with a hot shower or if it is a sign of something more serious.
    If it were, then it seems clear to me that whatever it might be would grow worse and worse and more and more expensive to take care of.
    Hence, I would save the system money if I went to a doctor now and it was more than being cramped from working at home.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I have seen posts by earljr1 and he is bright.
    He is, also, in medicine as one of my cousins is.
    That is why I asked him.
    Any idea why a reasonable elected leader (forget party for just one moment) would not seek to amend this but just reject it outside of ideology?

  • http://twitter.com/danielledstrade Danielle Destrade

    While I think bipartisanship can bring good ideas from both sides, as a Democrat I really don’t want health care reform to be diluted too much. Still, it seems like Obama’s efforts are more for show than actually changing much (http://bit.ly/cJFVLz)

  • jtechguy

    Public option sounds good on the surface. My fear is that it will end up looking like this “public option”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03postal.html

    How are cost controlled if it can always get more money from the taxpayer and/or print it from the Federal Reserve?

    With the political pressures there will be no end to the services it “must cover” for free.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Good link. Thank you
    I’ve been frustrated today on this site because I keep on trying to get something highly specific about the bill Republicans would change.
    I agree that it is mostly for show because it seems that Obama is getting less than even I am about health care reform opponents but is trying to put it out there that he is not ignoring Republicans.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    LOL
    Note this: ever notice how many things successfully make it through the postal service. It’s extremely close to 100% in my experience. Not one piece of junk mail or bill ever failed to arrive.
    The internet originally called Arpanet was a department of defense system and beat out the postal service by making delivery under one minute instead of at least 48 hours.
    For the most part, I would call both examples of extreme success of government projects, but, I got your point.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @diecash1

    Of course .. One has to come to swampland blog to find truth! I forgot, I need to be told by the chosen one what the truth is! I always knew that X-Files was full of shit, now you have opened my eyes.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @patricksartor

    In India, there is govt provided healthcare. The problem is doctors/hospitals exist mostly on paper only.

    If you lived in a country where the govt controlled everything for a few years, it will change your perspective about a lot of things! What people take here for granted, the rest of the world can only dream about.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I am aware that India had nationalized industries, taken coca cola out replacing it with a drink I saw on a shelf once called Thumbs up.
    India is a third world country.
    By no means is that an insult to you, most of my ancestors came from a country during a deadly famine (Irish). So, the poverty of the nation is not about the quality of the people unless I wanted to call myself inferior, too.
    However, it is apples and oranges due to per capita GDP and, at least as important, India made some mistakes which are totally unrelated to health care.
    Compare the US to France since you have lived there.
    Also, keep in mind, we are planning on a far more modest system than France.
    Besides higher taxes for what could easily be called “Cadillac” insurance, what else did you see and experience in France which would give you such extreme concerns?
    Telling me this would be educational.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Although I am under forty years old and have never had any illnesses to speak of, my father had good health insurance and was very ill.
    My mother ended up saddled with a good deal of paperwork, bills insurance said they would cover not getting paid and a number of other things which were more difficult than dealing with most government agencies in this country.
    So, since all healthcare coverage will involve paperwork and minor but very irritating screw ups, there is a very low hurdle to get over for a different system.

  • earljr1

    Patricksartor, I have been in the OR for the past ten hours, so at this point, I am running on fumes. My point is simply this, SLOW this process down. An all out rush (for political expediency) to implement sweeping reform, could easily break the system. We provide excellent service to the vast majority of our citizenry and those left out, SHOULD be provided for…I think everyone agrees on this point. Getting there and how to do it? Insurance companies are a major component in this log jam. Both sides are in agreement here. Begin at this point and start working your way down. Competitive drug pricing?…another issue not addressed. (Obama’s deal with big Pharma?) How to pay for all of this? therein lies the problem. I don’t think EITHER side has addressed this issue adequately. Much work needs to be done in this arena. Other provisions like tort reform, MUST also be addressed if we are to ever start reducing medical costs. What I am saying, patricksator, is this. This legislation, as it stands, still needs MUCH work. Obama seems determined to force it through at ANY cost and I, for one, think it is a BIG mistake to do so. Do we break the system so one side can declare victory? I sincerely hope not.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    With so many people’s insurance being unchanged, I am not aware (I am not saying that there are none, just that I am unaware of any) how those already with insurance could loose out anything at all.
    Although at the moment I am not, I will be insured long before 2014 and will most likely, be one of those who will not even notice when the change takes place since it would have no impact (unless there is something significant I missed – like I missed that Wendell Wilkie going against his party’s official platform in 1940, if that was not digression).

blog comments powered by Disqus