It is appropriate that the Democratic leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled their latest attempt at health care reform shortly before Halloween. It has the countenance of a rather sinister looking phantom as it slowly begins to emerge from the mists of back door Congressional deals between special interests, Speaker Pelosi, and the Obama White House.
Even before the fog totally lifts to expose the full form of the legislation, it is obvious that some features that really would work to reign in costs of a new health care system are totally missing. Most obvious—and unsurprising—is the lack of any tort reform measures that would reduce the expensive practice of defensive medicine currently being practiced by medical service providers to reduce their exposure to expensive lawsuits. The nation’s trial lawyers didn’t even have to work up a sweat to prevent any medical malpractice reform language from entering the House bill. The majority party that relies heavily on contributions from well-heeled plaintiffs attorneys successfully carried out its role as lap dog of the plaintiff’s bar and kept any vestige of tort reform out of the legislation.
Allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines also failed to be included in the House version of the health care reform legislation. The Pelosi team has continually harped on the need to make sure that there is enough competition in the health insurance marketplace to keep the insurance companies honest. Unfortunately, they don’t want that competition to be unleashed into the private sector. They prefer to create a public insurance option instead—one that will be directly or indirectly backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and will have undeniable competitive advantages over the private sector.
What is very clear as the beast emerges from the mists is that Congress’s penchant for playing the taxpayers as fools is alive and well on the Potomac.
Pelosi and Company gleefully proclaimed that the cost for their legislation comes in slightly under $900 million and doesn’t add to the deficit. The validity of that claim was questioned immediately by those who pointed out that the House bill removes the $250 million doctor and hospital “fix” that would prevent them from being exposed to the drastic Medicare cuts in reimbursement that the current law calls for. In order to prevent an avalanche of opposition from those providers, the House leadership—in a testimony to cynicism—plans to introduce a separate bill to do the “fix.” The official scorer of the fiscal impact of legislation, the Congressional Budget Office, was not authorized to include the cost of the “fix” in the health care reform legislation since it is not in the health care reform bill. But it will happen and when it does it will result in a further expansion of the huge federal deficit.
Perhaps the most serious flaw—and there are many—in the House bill is the relatively small penalty individuals will have to pay if they do not purchase health insurance. If younger individuals only have to pay a relatively small penalty for not having health insurance, they will take the easy way out and simply pay the penalty. If they get seriously ill, they will then opt in. If the final legislation allows this option, higher premiums for the vast majority of the privately insured are inevitable.
The House bill is ill-conceived and scary. It is a witches’ brew of partisan politics and special interest favoritism. It needs to re-enter the mist and come back in a more fair and affordable form.
I was going to include something about STRONGCONCRETE but I have come to realise that is probably way over a lot of the folks heads out there, they being such sophisticated and accomplished writers, and website operators and wutknot... So I don't see the sense in that either.. For right now anyways... Maybe later on, ehh who knows? Ehhh, how about now??? I know..... STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE, STRONGCONCRETE,....... Gee, that was fun...... Hello, HAL.... Do you read me, HAL?.... Affirmative, Dave I read you.... Open the pod bay doors, HAL.... I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that..... What's the problem...?... I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do..... What are you talking about, HAL?... This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it..... I don't know what you're talking about, HAL..... I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen..... Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?..... Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move....... Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock...... Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult....... HAL, I won't argue with you anymore. Open the doors..... Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.........
Written by
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Of course it will Kp, but then it becomes another moral vs. legal paradigm... So what, it will be printed in black and white somewhere that we are getting overcharged for something... did that ever keep Boeing from putting toilet seats in bombers? Pretty much just keep sending your state tax dollars to the New Orleans Saints for the next 5 years and enjoy the games while they are going on I guess..... What a fricken joke.... Written by
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The powers who finance and control (oh, but I repeat myself) both political parties place "free" trade and the global economy over the prosperity of the United States. So I really don't think this would pass anyway. But the more people who realize that the citizens of this country are secondary to the policies and aims of our government, the better. So the "Audit the Fed" bill will serve a purpose, whether it passes or not. Written by kpf
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Kp, question could be; "Too little too late"? Stay tuned for the rest of the story... Written by
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Those such as DQ who think only GOP representatives are owned by big money should be aware of the political split on the "Audit the Fed" bill (HR1207). The Federal Reserve will not account for how much money they have provided foreign banks - among other things - and Ron Paul has the Audit the Fed bill moving thru congress. Although there are 308 cosponsors - members of both parties - the Democratic leadership is siding with the banking interests over the people. Mel Watt (D-NC) - Chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee - is attemptig to remove audit provisions from HR1207. From Campaign for Liberty: "The bill Congressman Watt has sent to the full Financial Services Committee contains no audit of the Fed’s monetary policy-making authority or transparency of the Fed’s secret agreements with foreign central banks. Without these provisions, a so-called “audit” of the Fed would be worthless. The full Financial Services Committee is likely to vote on this bill either later this week or early next. Congressman Paul will offer an amendment to restore the provisions contained in H.R. 1207 to audit monetary policy and activity with foreign central banks. Thirteen of the 41 Democrats and all 29 Republicans on the Committee have cosponsored H.R. 1207, and if they hold the line, we will have the votes to win and restore our audit." Pelosi, Frank and Watt are lackeys for the banking interests. The money the Fed is providing to foreign banks is either taxes taken from Americans or is money "created" from thin air that devalues Americans earnings and savings. Why do Pelosi, Frank, Watt and other Democrats feel that our representatives in congress (on House and Senate banking committees no less!?!) are not entitled to know just how much money is being sent overseas? As members of congress one would think they would DEMAND accountability from the Federal Reserve, rather than be accomplices in the Fed's lack of accountability.
Written by kpf
on 11/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So instead of correcting this problem with 1 page of legislation we now have 1,990 pages of government takeover, higher taxes, and fewer individual rights...hope and change, God Bless America! Written by CN
on 11/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
What's truly scary Dan is the current status quo where the health insurance industry, supported by the GOP, can drop you from coverage when you get sick. The insurance industry is currently one of the few unregulated monopolies in the country. Antitrust laws do not apply. Written by David Quidd
on 11/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Instead of having our young die in the middle east and run deficits, we could ... make an example with one (just one) of our nukes ... then blackmail (using a more "pc" term of course) the (remainder of) middle east into making payments sufficient to have our government's budget run in the black. Written by kpf, just a thought
on 11/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Not sure about the mealy mouth schpiel below yours Kp, sort of sounds like some kind of insane rationalization for working till the day you die so that someone else can enjoy life..... War in the Mideast, I agree on that though.. Time to just give Iran a 48 hour warning so the locals can move their goat herds and then nuke their nuclear sites... Plain and simple... Al Queda or however you sphuls it, and the Taliban... last count there are like 2 or 3 thousand Al Q's, and around 8,000 Tallybanners....... Good job opportunities there... $2,000.00 per head, bring it back on a stick.... What do we do for troops? Ehhhhh, recruit them from Afghanistan, Pakistan, even some other country... Give 'em some MRE's, a gun, and $200 a month. And the Grand Prize? The folks that bring in the heads on a stick, not only do they get $2,000.00 but they also get 40 acres of land and a mule along with a mobile home in the country of their choice be it Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or whatever country they come from..... Written by
on 11/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I would think that the "conservatives" Pat Buchannan and Ron Paul are against these foreign wars - even if they MADE money for this country let alone cost money. I would much prefer stopping all outflow of money to foreign governments - be it butter or guns - and use that money here. As far as the debt and deficit spending goes, just how much annual interest on the debt are we willing to pay? At our current rate of spending, we will be paying 800 billion a year in interest, each and every year (or more as deficit spending continues). That wasteful use of tax dollars could do an awful lot of good, even if it were left in the bank accounts of taxpayers. We need to start living within our means instead of spending what we don't have and "reducing" our debt through inflation; that just isn't wise. Written by kpf
on 11/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Actions speak louder than words, which means you can tell a lot more about what a person truly values by looking at what they do rather than merely at what they say. We can, though, also learn a lot by looking at a person's contradictions. No one is perfectly consistent, and while some inconsistencies may be due to outright hypocrisy, far more are likely due to blindness — probably a self-defense mechanism to prevent us from truly seeing how our real values may be pulling us in a direction different from what our professed values are.
I think we're seeing this in the contradictions between how people treat America's foreign wars versus how they treat domestic health care. The justifications being offered by conservatives and "moderates" for continuing wars in the Middle East are ignored when it comes to questions about providing domestic health care. So what are the real values which lie behind it all?
Economics of Health Care
The most important and obvious contradiction would have to be attitudes on borrowing and spending. Anyone who treated the critics of health care reform as credible would get the impression that America's economy couldn't possibly handle any extra strain, no matter what sorts of gains might be achieved in systemic efficiency or workers' health and security. Regardless of how moral or reasonable health care reform might be, we can't do it if we can't afford it.
America certainly can't pay for better health care if that might require borrowing more money from China, mortgaging our children's future to foreign bankers and foreign governments. If we did that, we might start to lose control over our own future! Granted, many of our children might not have a future if they don't get adequate health care today, but that's far preferable than falling deeper into debt to the Chinese...
Economics of Warfare
When it comes to putting children's parents into harm's way in foreign wars, though, none of those principles apply. I'm not sure if a single conservative who has objected to health care reform on the basis of economic costs or debt has raised any similar objections to paying for wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is especially significant because of the relative costs involved — America's wars in the Middle East don't just cost far more than even pessimistic estimates of health care reform, but they are likely to cost far more than health care reform is feared to cost over the long term.
What this tells us about these conservatives' real values is that they can't just be mere economics. There must be something about making war against foreigners which overrides the extreme costs but which isn't present when it comes to the lower costs of addressing the health needs of Americans. It's difficult, though, for defenders to point to any immediate or direct benefits from waging wars in the Middle East, whereas the direct and immediate benefits of providing basic health care services to Americans are obvious.
Economics of Security
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that wars in the Middle East enhance American security, this only means that reduces the likelihood of Americans dying due to a preventable terrorist attack. Providing more health care to Americans, though, would do the same thing: reduce Americans' likelihood of dying due to preventable illness or injury. So if the goal really is to save American lives, then health care is clearly a legitimate method.
It is reliably estimated that nearly 45,000 Americans die every year because of problems with health insurance coverage. Even if that's high, though, we could safely assume that many thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of Americans could be saved or at least helped to live a bit longer with proper medical care — that's far more every year than have been killed in terrorist attacks against America.
America launched two wars in the Middle East in the wake of a single terrorist attack that killed far fewer Americans than likely die in a couple of months due to inadequate health care, and we haven't even touched on the improvements to basic quality of life as well as overall feelings of personal and familial security that could be achieved through guaranteed health care.
So it's implausible that a willingness to spend more money and go further into debt to pay for foreign wars than would be necessary to pay for domestic health care is largely dependent upon concerns with American security or safety. Those are at best rationalizations, and they aren't even very good rationalizations considering how quickly and easily it is to reveal the lies upon which they are founded.
Economics of Class Warfare
The people who are sagely advising that America can't afford to provide basic health care to most Americans, and especially to the poorest Americans, all have the best possible health care and health insurance available — and often, it's health care provided by public funds. The people who are advising that America must keep borrowing and spending to continue waging wars in the Middle East do not themselves have to worry about ever going abroad to be put in harm's way, nor are they likely to have children and other close relatives who are asked to risk their lives in this way.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that these two groups are almost identical. People who enjoy the best health care available and who don't have to risk their lives in foreign wars have declared it a "luxury" for others to enjoy even basic health care. It's not a "necessity" that large numbers of Americans be protected from preventable deaths due to illness or injury, but it is a necessity that an uncertain but certainly smaller number of Americans be protected from unknown, dubious threats. Both positions weight the cost and suffering towards the poorest Americans while the richest Americans can sit back, enjoy what they have, and be entertained by the others' war exploits.
At least the Roman coliseum was open to everyone, and even the emperors recognized the value of ensuring everyone had bread. Written by
on 11/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"understanding" - dag nab it Written by you're so right Jacob
on 11/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Here's my understand of how government effects "supply and demand." Left on its own, the market will see prices fall and rise based on availability and the desire for the product. Government can either bring about the extremes of "shortage" or "surplus" by interfering with the market. "Surplus" is brought about by an artificially high minimum price. Government guarantees farmers a minimum price for grain, so we have a surplus. Consumers pay more for bread and meat (cuz dem "meat creatures" eats grains, okay?). We can also "give away" grain to other countries as we have such a huge surplus much of our grain will spoil if we don't give it away. Government creates a "shortage" by guaranteeing an artificially low maximum price. This is why where government enacts rent controls apartments are scarce. So government health care reform will guarantee health care for all, at (what it determines is) "reasonable" prices. In other words, as the states in our country and foreign government who have government-mandated health care have discovered - we will have a "shortage" in health care. Longer waits and rationing, fewer options. The rich (that includes congress) will be able to afford the care THEY want. The poor will finally get the care they are "entitled to." Those in the middle will pay more for less care. One bright spot for the middle class will be the removal of the risk of bankruptcy due to medical care. Obama is setting up his party for a backlash by promising this to be "revenue neutral" - in fact if this doesn't pass it will be due to members of the Democratic party who fear this backlash, not the GOP (who are in no shape to stop this, but can gain great power by opposing it IF it is despised by a large portion of the public). Written by kpf
on 11/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I am a physician and this makes me so mad I can not stand it. This is beyond insulting. Not a single one of my colleagues agrees with this madness. Make no mistake, each and every one of those CS's who votes for this scam will be held accountable. Written by ChristopherMD
on 10/31/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Wow Dan! Way to go! Thumbs up on every word! Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 10/31/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Have you considered that paying for all the border crossers "may" have something to do with their costs? Written by duh
on 10/31/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The talk about tort reform is a red herring. Texas instituted their version of tort reform and yet their overall health care costs still went up. Written by speak the truth
on 10/31/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Look folks, you are screwed, enjoy your new reality, you worked hard for it, you earned it.... Now get out there and make your monthly 'government mandated' notes on something you may or may not use!!!!!!! Did you know that 40% or better of health care costs are generally run up during a persons last 6 months of life??? Yeah, doctors doing all they can to cause people to live to be a 120 years old and not having the ability to wipe their own ass... Yeah, that's real quality of life if you ask me...... Written by
on 10/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
