We're Headed Straight Off a Cliff If Health Care Passes

[rwetmore]

By Cal Thomas

Never has “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” sounded more like an empty promise.

Pork is the preferred legislative meat for members of Congress, but this weekend they opted for bologna as they tried to convince the public – and themselves – that their so-called “health care” or health insurance “reform” monstrosity will be good for us. At least Castor oil was supposed to work even though it tasted awful. This bill not only tastes bad, it will curdle the best health care system in the world, which could be made a lot better, but will be made much worse with many of the provisions in this legislation.

Democrats now readily admit that Medicare is full of waste, fraud and abuse, but they want us to believe they can run an even larger venture without throwing additional money away. Amazing!

President Obama again claimed in Saturday remarks to the House Democratic caucus that the bill will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion. He must know that isn’t true because the money “saved” from Medicare cuts will go to pay for new spending. Only in Washington can you save money and spend money at the same time.

Addressing critics of the bill, President Obama said no one is “going to pull the plug on grandma.” They won’t have to. Grandma will be denied treatment because she will be too much of a financial burden on government. It’s called rationing. Grandma had better start working out, eating lots of oatmeal and hope she doesn’t get sick. Why do you think the president kept mentioning sick children? It’s because children are the ones who will get the most – and best – treatment. Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel, has said government has a right to decide how many health care dollars you are worth. And if children with a lifelong taxpaying potential are worth more than grandma who is taking more from the tax pot than she is contributing, that’s too bad for grandma.

The president also said the bill will save money by requiring only one test by the doctor “not five tests.” But what if the first test doesn’t reveal the nature of an illness? Suppose a cancer is hiding in one organ and the test is for cancer in another organ? A second (or fifth) test might reveal the location of the disease, but under Obamacare, a government bureaucrat will allow just one test. -- It’s a form of Russian roulette.

The president promised again “you can keep your doctor.” But what if the doctor quits because he or she can’t afford to accept reduced fees mandated by government to keep costs down, while paying ever-increasing premiums for malpractice insurance to protect the doctor from lawsuits, which, by the way, is another reason the doctor did so many tests.

Companies sometimes test-market new products in regions of the country to see how well they sell. Government-run health care has been test-marketed in Massachusetts and it is a disaster. The cost of the state’s insurance program has ballooned by 42 percent, or almost $600 million. According to an analysis by the Rand Corporation, “in the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product.”

The cost of insurance in Massachusetts is the highest in the nation. Double-digit rate increases are expected again this year. Yet, President Obama claimed Saturday that under the Democrats’ plan, rates will go down. How is this possible? If Massachusetts can’t run a cost-effective health program, how can the federal government? And by the way, the only reason Massachusetts has not gone broke (but is headed there) is because Washington has conducted large transfusions of cash because it has a vested interest in protecting the illusion of Massachusetts’ success.

The president said we should support the health insurance bill out of “a sense of neighborliness and community.” When I was growing up, that meant you, not government, helped your neighbor. Government was a last resort, not a first resource. Never has “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” sounded more like an empty promise.

Remember when Democrats used to care about debt as a burden to our children and grandchildren? They claimed to care about debt when it was a “mere” $450 billion under George W. Bush. Now it’s headed toward the trillions. Where are the green eye-shade Democrats now? They’re spending us into debt as fast as the Treasury can print the money – or the Chinese will lend it to us. The interest on the national debt now exceeds the GDP of some countries.
Total U.S. debt has soared to an all-time high of 370 percent of yearly economic output. That far exceeds its peak of 300 percent during the Great Depression.

Jobs will be lost because of this bill. Already, Caterpiller Company is laying-off workers because it estimates the health care bill will cost the company $100 million.

Why should we believe the promises of politicians? While the president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi touted Medicare, what they forgot to mention was that the cost of that program (and the waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant in it) was supposed to be a fraction of today’s cost. In fact, it was sold on the basis of low cost.

There are no such things as cheap government programs. They become like the "Blob That Ate Tokyo," gobbling up everything in their path.

President Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln, who said he was “bound to be true” and suggested that he, too, was bound to be true. This legislation is so full of budget gimmicks, tricks and lies that the only thing true about is that it will make health care in America worse, not better.

[MarkC]

How about instead of copy/pasting a talking-head article, you just tell us in your own words, and succinctly, exactly how we're headed straight off a cliff?

And of course be sure to also include how we're NOT headed off a cliff if it DOESN'T pass.
Not to mention how we're maybe not off a cliff right now.

And remember -- in your own words, credibly, and in a way that shows an understanding of this thing.

We await your reply.

P.S. That article is full of the usual arguable argumentative selective baloney. Not to mention that a goodly portion of what he says he's afraid of is going on currently.

[rwetmore]

How about instead of copy/pasting a talking-head article, you just tell us in your own words, and succinctly, exactly how we're headed straight off a cliff?

And of course be sure to also include how we're NOT headed off a cliff if it DOESN'T pass.
Not to mention how we're maybe not off a cliff right now.

And remember -- in your own words, credibly, and in a way that shows an understanding of this thing.

We await your reply.

Do you?

Look, we were still headed for a cliff with just social security and medicare alone even if not one additional dollar was added to the budget since Obama and the democrats took over. What they've effectively done now is accelerate us toward the cliff like 10 fold.

Let me give you an analogy: You're on a train and you hear an urgent warning report that several miles down the tracks a bridge is out, which means to any rational person if you don't slow down and stop in time you're going to go off the cliff. What the democrats are doing instead of hitting the brakes or at least not speeding up, is they're hitting the accelerator - speeding up to the approaching cliff because A: they're in a fantasy world and think that somehow the train will grow wings and fly once it goes over or B: they don't believe or want to believe the report that the bridge is out, and if it turns out to be true - they can blame Reagan and Bush for causing the bridge to fall apart in the first place.

Get it?

[absinthe]

Let me give you an analogy: You're on a train and you hear an urgent warning report that several miles down the tracks a bridge is out, which means to any rational person if you don't slow down and stop in time you're going to go off the cliff. What the democrats are doing instead of hitting the brakes or at least not speeding up, is they're hitting the accelerator - speeding up to the approaching cliff........

So...let's get this straight. You're saying that providing medical care for c 45 million people who can't get insurance nor afford to go to the doctors; or cancer treatments such as chemo and bone-marrow stuff to those on lower cost plans for whom these treatments are labeled "experimental" hence not covered by their plans, is going off a cliff?

So you're happy to let a few of that 45 million who are children, die? Simply because they can't afford a visit to the doctor's?

Sounds a bit Hitlerian to me: all those sick who can't afford insurance...chuck em off the cliff.

Let's get some stats. How much do the lawyers make from cases where patients have to sue to get their insurance companies to pay up? How many die that might have been saved if treatment had been available? How much do sick people (who might be treated) cost the American economy?

Obviously, people on the far right are rich enough not to need nationalised health care - but most are on the far right because of their wealth not their health. Spare a thought for those who provide that wealth (or could do if they weren't ill).

[Agnes Selby]

Let me give you an analogy: You're on a train and you hear an urgent warning report that several miles down the tracks a bridge is out, which means to any rational person if you don't slow down and stop in time you're going to go off the cliff. What the democrats are doing instead of hitting the brakes or at least not speeding up, is they're hitting the accelerator - speeding up to the approaching cliff........

So...let's get this straight. You're saying that providing medical care for c 45 million people who can't get insurance nor afford to go to the doctors; or cancer treatments such as chemo and bone-marrow stuff to those on lower cost plans for whom these treatments are labeled "experimental" hence not covered by their plans, is going off a cliff?

So you're happy to let a few of that 45 million who are children, die? Simply because they can't afford a visit to the doctor's?

Sounds a bit Hitlerian to me: all those sick who can't afford insurance...chuck em off the cliff.

Let's get some stats. How much do the lawyers make from cases where patients have to sue to get their insurance companies to pay up? How many die that might have been saved if treatment had been available? How much do sick people (who might be treated) cost the American economy?

Obviously, people on the far right are rich enough not to need nationalised health care - but most are on the far right because of their wealth not their health. Spare a thought for those who provide that wealth (or could do if they weren't ill).

-----------

I agree with Absinthe. It is difficult to imagine that a country like
the USA does not provide a national health scheme. It is equally
difficult to imagine a parent with a sick child unable to afford medical
help. I hope the two parties can iron out their differences. Our
Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

Agnes.

[MarkC]

....Do you?.....

Sounds like you're conceding that you don't.

(Do I? Well, I'm in the industry, so maybe I do and maybe I don't.)

Dunno about you, but to me, copy/pasting yet another talking-head argumentative spin-argument at this stage -- when we've already heard all of that stuff before, from both sides -- doesn't do anything. If you think that article says anything new, or anything striking or impressive, let us know. It's the usual commonplace melange of ho-hum from that side.

[Teresa B]

Let me give you an analogy: You're on a train and you hear an urgent warning report that several miles down the tracks a bridge is out, which means to any rational person if you don't slow down and stop in time you're going to go off the cliff. What the democrats are doing instead of hitting the brakes or at least not speeding up, is they're hitting the accelerator - speeding up to the approaching cliff........

So...let's get this straight. You're saying that providing medical care for c 45 million people who can't get insurance nor afford to go to the doctors; or cancer treatments such as chemo and bone-marrow stuff to those on lower cost plans for whom these treatments are labeled "experimental" hence not covered by their plans, is going off a cliff?

So you're happy to let a few of that 45 million who are children, die? Simply because they can't afford a visit to the doctor's?

Sounds a bit Hitlerian to me: all those sick who can't afford insurance...chuck em off the cliff.

Let's get some stats. How much do the lawyers make from cases where patients have to sue to get their insurance companies to pay up? How many die that might have been saved if treatment had been available? How much do sick people (who might be treated) cost the American economy?

Obviously, people on the far right are rich enough not to need nationalised health care - but most are on the far right because of their wealth not their health. Spare a thought for those who provide that wealth (or could do if they weren't ill).

-----------

I agree with Absinthe. It is difficult to imagine that a country like
the USA does not provide a national health scheme. It is equally
difficult to imagine a parent with a sick child unable to afford medical
help. I hope the two parties can iron out their differences. Our
Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

Agnes.

Ditto. And it's looking good as of Sunday afternoon. I don't for a minute think this plan is wonderful, but if it can be a spring board for improvement, and possibly even a single payer at some point, I'm for it.

Teresa

[rwetmore]

So...let's get this straight. You're saying that providing medical care for c 45 million people who can't get insurance nor afford to go to the doctors; or cancer treatments such as chemo and bone-marrow stuff to those on lower cost plans for whom these treatments are labeled "experimental" hence not covered by their plans, is going off a cliff?

No, I'm saying there's isn't sufficient, sustainable revenue to pay for it.

So you're happy to let a few of that 45 million who are children, die? Simply because they can't afford a visit to the doctor's?

No, of course not. Even uninsured people get medical care in this country, and the current system has many provisions for the poor that don't require them to pay, which is fine by me.

Sounds a bit Hitlerian to me: all those sick who can't afford insurance...chuck em off the cliff.

That's absurd - no one is advocating anything remotely like that.

Let's get some stats. How much do the lawyers make from cases where patients have to sue to get their insurance companies to pay up? How many die that might have been saved if treatment had been available? How much do sick people (who might be treated) cost the American economy?

You people never cease to amaze me. You criticize the insurance companies for resisting or refusing to pay for care, yet you advocate a government plan, run by a bankrupt government that is specifically designed to deny and ration care - they very thing you despise the insurance companies for doing. It's like trading several small tyrants for one big tyrant. At least the small tyrants are financially solvent and actually have incoming revenue to pay for their customers' claims. And at least one still has legal recourse if an insurance company refuses to pay. If the government denies you care, how are you going to fight back? What is your legal recourse? Pretty much nothing - there's no way to really fight back. You're screwed.

Obviously, people on the far right are rich enough not to need nationalised health care - but most are on the far right because of their wealth not their health. Spare a thought for those who provide that wealth (or could do if they weren't ill).

Be careful. I'm not rich, and I'm currently without health insurance.

[rwetmore]

Sounds like you're conceding that you don't.

(Do I? Well, I'm in the industry, so maybe I do and maybe I don't.)

Dunno about you, but to me, copy/pasting yet another talking-head argumentative spin-argument at this stage -- when we've already heard all of that stuff before, from both sides -- doesn't do anything. If you think that article says anything new, or anything striking or impressive, let us know.

You asked, I answered.

It's the usual commonplace melange of ho-hum from that side.

Yes, but it's still accurate none the less.

[rwetmore]

Our Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

I would like to know what children are dying in the this country due to the lack of receiving proper medical care? Give me some specific cases please.

A guy I used to work with last year had a 1 year old daughter with a rare but life threatening health condition that required all kinds of expensive and elaborate treatment. She eventually succumbed to the disease and died, but not even slightly due to any lack of getting proper care. Her medical bills totaled like over 1 million dollars over her life. The father had no health insurance. Guess what? Medicaid paid for all of it.

[MarkC]

I would like to know what children are dying in the this country due to the lack of receiving proper medical care? Give me some specific cases please......

Go to your room.

People of any and all ages are without availability of medical care, and some of them that supposedly have it still get it denied. Obviously most of them still live, and some don't. If you're asking us for "specific cases," you're just throwing mud.

But at least you've moved off of that stupid article you posted.

[Guitarist]

Exactly what is in the tea that you tea baggers have been drinking? There is no cliff and no one is throwing us anywhere!

[Corlyss_D]

If you're asking us for "specific cases," you're just throwing mud.

Right. That's what happens whenever you ask a lib for examples of their favorite myths. Surely you know that hospitals that receive federal funds are prohibited from denying anyone emergency care. Long term care of chronic diseases is another matter - they don't have to supply it at taxpayer's expense. Even medicare and medicaid draw the line, and with more patients and fewer dollars to spread around, the line is going to be drawn a lot sooner than it has been.

[Corlyss_D]

I agree with Absinthe. It is difficult to imagine that a country like
the USA does not provide a national health scheme. It is equally
difficult to imagine a parent with a sick child unable to afford medical
help. I hope the two parties can iron out their differences. Our
Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

Agnes.

Neither one of you will have yours for long in the shape they both are in and the shape both your countries are in financially. Don't keep kidding yourself. The model is unsustainable. See article at http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... =Australia

[Corlyss_D]

Exactly what is in the tea that you tea baggers have been drinking? There is no cliff and no one is throwing us anywhere!

Suggest you take a look at this and understand one thing about Health Care if you understand no other: it's only going to make our fiscal state much much worse much much faster. Obama/Peolsi/Reid have finally managed to deliver Carter's dream for the US: a much smaller and less intimidating presence in the world.

[Air]

So it passed.

What do the upcoming years hold for us I wonder? I'm not as informed on this matter as I should be.

[rwetmore]

What do the upcoming years hold for us I wonder? I'm not as informed on this matter as I should be.

You're probably better off not knowing at this point.

[DavidRoss]

12/07/1941;
09/11/2001;
03/21/2010?

[Guitarist]

03/21/2010?

Millions of people who don't have health care will now have it? (or actually in a few years when it become effective.)

[rwetmore]

What do the upcoming years hold for us I wonder? I'm not as informed on this matter as I should be.

Most of this doesn't go into effect for several years. If it doesn't get reversed or overturned before it gets implemented, you can expect rapidly rising health insurance costs and a lot of public discontentment surrounding it. The goal of the plan is to make insurance costs rise so the government can enforce price controls that will drive the insurance companies out of business and usher in full blown government single payer.

[jbuck919]

03/21/2010?

Millions of people who don't have health care will now have it? (or actually in a few years when it become effective.)

We're just going to have to all decide what part we want to play in assuring that societal collapse happens in order to save our fellow posters from looking foolish when it does not. It's a pity we don't have members in Sweden and the Netherlands who could get the ball rolling over there as well.

[rwetmore]

We're just going to have to all decide what part we want to play in assuring that societal collapse happens in order to save our fellow posters from looking foolish when it does not. It's a pity we don't have members in Sweden and the Netherlands who could get the ball rolling over there as well.

The society is not going to collapse, but it will eventually begin a fairly steady decline - the economy, healthcare, overall attitude, etc.. That's the plan anyway. Exactly how it will ultimately play out is still an unknown. For starters, we don't know how much more damage they will successfully inflict on us before they lose their majorities later this year. Will they get immigration? Will they get cap and trade? On the flip side, we still have millions of innovative and hardworking people in the private sector, that even under tougher conditions and longer odds, will try to successfully run and grow their businesses - a powerful force in an of itself.

[rwetmore]

Almost nothing from the bill will be enacted for at least 6 months, and all the really bad stuff doesn't go into effect for several years - after they've all been re-elected (they hope).

[MarkC]

.....What do the upcoming years hold for us I wonder? I'm not as informed on this matter as I should be.

You have just revealed yourself to be far smarter than most on the subject.

[Agnes Selby]

I agree with Absinthe. It is difficult to imagine that a country like
the USA does not provide a national health scheme. It is equally
difficult to imagine a parent with a sick child unable to afford medical
help. I hope the two parties can iron out their differences. Our
Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

Agnes.

Neither one of you will have yours for long in the shape they both are in and the shape both your countries are in financially. Don't keep kidding yourself. The model is unsustainable. See article at http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... =Australia

--------------

I have read the article you posted, Corlyss. Rudd wants to take over
the running of hospitals which are at present run by the States.
Tomorrow he is having a debate on TV with the leader of the Opposition,
Tony Abbot as a prelude to our Federal elections.

It is true that the States have neglected the running of hospitals which
are in dire need of modernisation. The takeover by Federal Government would
cost the states 1/3rd of the GST they collect. As you can imagine, the
States are not too happy to give up this revenue.

As Australia's economy is improving, I do not expect our health care system
to collapse any time soon. We are no longer riding on the sheep's back but
rather on the mining boom, so perhaps we will last a little longer.
However, one can never tell. We are affected not only by our own
mishaps but by the world economy as well.
-----------

[Corlyss_D]

03/21/2010?

Millions of people who don't have health care will now have it? (or actually in a few years when it become effective.)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/

Not that you will take my word for it, but for the few issues they cover, factcheck.org is a practially unimpeachable source of facts as opposed to spin, talking-points, Dem lies, Republican lies, liberal/progressive lies, conservative lies, and the usual bullsh*it from the usual sources.

[jbuck919]

We're just going to have to all decide what part we want to play in assuring that societal collapse happens in order to save our fellow posters from looking foolish when it does not. It's a pity we don't have members in Sweden and the Netherlands who could get the ball rolling over there as well.

The society is not going to collapse, but it will eventually begin a fairly steady decline - the economy, healthcare, overall attitude, etc.. That's the plan anyway. Exactly how it will ultimately play out is still an unknown. For starters, we don't know how much more damage they will successfully inflict on us before they lose their majorities later this year. Will they get immigration? Will they get cap and trade? On the flip side, we still have millions of innovative and hardworking people in the private sector, that even under tougher conditions and longer odds, will try to successfully run and grow their businesses - a powerful force in an of itself.

I could start a new thread about the premises behind that seemingly simple phrase "fairly steady decline," and I see immigration reform as an opportunity to kill a lot of birds with one stone including some related to economic health. However, I am impressed by your sense of hope, which to judge from the posting is not shared by some here who are on your side of the political spectrum.

[Teresa B]

Our Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

I would like to know what children are dying in the this country due to the lack of receiving proper medical care? Give me some specific cases please.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.

The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance, accounting for 16,787 of some 38,649 children’s deaths nationwide during the period analyzed. *

*http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ly-to-die/

A guy I used to work with last year had a 1 year old daughter with a rare but life threatening health condition that required all kinds of expensive and elaborate treatment. She eventually succumbed to the disease and died, but not even slightly due to any lack of getting proper care.

And you know this how? Have you studied her medical records to see if she received her diagnosis in a timely manner, or if her treatments were all appropriate, or if complications were recognized and treated properly?

Her medical bills totaled like over 1 million dollars over her life. The father had no health insurance. Guess what? Medicaid paid for all of it.

The poorest families qualify for Medicaid, and many who make a little too much still cannot afford insurance--they are the ones who go bankrupt when a catastrophic illness strikes. And because Medicaid pays a very small fraction of the bill, the hospital jacks up the charges for those that can pay.

...And need I add, the irony of this is, if indeed this ultimately unfortunate little girl did get every proper treatment, she did have health care coverage, and it was a government-run plan.

Teresa

[DavidRoss]

03/21/2010?

Millions of people who don't have health care will now have it? (or actually in a few years when it become effective.)

Evaluating this bill based upon the desirability of one questionable claim made for it is like evaluating Mussolini's fascism on the desirability of punctual trains. Framing the debate as if those opposing the bill also oppose the desirable goals claimed for the bill is a false polemic.

I do not believe that the provisions of this bill will substantially improve the delivery of health care services in America, even to the indigent. I do not believe this legislation will do anything to reduce the cost of health care in America or the rate at which costs are increasing. I do not believe it will reduce annual deficits or benefit economic growth.

I do believe it will screw up the chances for serious, meaningful reform in our lifetimes; that it will prove an economic disaster; and that the process involved in crafting it, selling it, and passing it makes this moment a pivotal turning point in U.S. history...and not for the better.

[keaggy220]

I do believe it will screw up the chances for serious, meaningful reform in our lifetimes; that it will prove an economic disaster; and that the process involved in crafting it, selling it, and passing it makes this moment a pivotal turning point in U.S. history...and not for the better.

Absolutely! This bill has nothing to do with reforming health care. It's about control and having more flexibility in confiscating monies.

[Guitarist]

According to CNN:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the bill will reduce the deficit by $138 billion in the first decade and will reduce the deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the second decade. In addition, the CBO confirms the bill both reins in wasteful spending to extend the solvency of Medicare for almost 10 years and closes the prescription drug "doughnut" hole for seniors.

Yep, scary indeed.

[keaggy220]

According to CNN:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the bill will reduce the deficit by $138 billion in the first decade and will reduce the deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the second decade. In addition, the CBO confirms the bill both reins in wasteful spending to extend the solvency of Medicare for almost 10 years and closes the prescription drug "doughnut" hole for seniors.

Yep, scary indeed.

Same promises were made about all entitlements my friend...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[living_stradivarius]

Our Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

I would like to know what children are dying in the this country due to the lack of receiving proper medical care? Give me some specific cases please.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.

The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance, accounting for 16,787 of some 38,649 children’s deaths nationwide during the period analyzed. *

*http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ly-to-die/

A guy I used to work with last year had a 1 year old daughter with a rare but life threatening health condition that required all kinds of expensive and elaborate treatment. She eventually succumbed to the disease and died, but not even slightly due to any lack of getting proper care.

And you know this how? Have you studied her medical records to see if she received her diagnosis in a timely manner, or if her treatments were all appropriate, or if complications were recognized and treated properly?

Her medical bills totaled like over 1 million dollars over her life. The father had no health insurance. Guess what? Medicaid paid for all of it.

The poorest families qualify for Medicaid, and many who make a little too much still cannot afford insurance--they are the ones who go bankrupt when a catastrophic illness strikes. And because Medicaid pays a very small fraction of the bill, the hospital jacks up the charges for those that can pay.

...And need I add, the irony of this is, if indeed this ultimately unfortunate little girl did get every proper treatment, she did have health care coverage, and it was a government-run plan.

Teresa

We should have offered universal care to all children long ago. This disproportionate funding allocated towards Medicare over S-CHIP was disgusting. The legislation we have now is simply going to water down what children would have gotten if children had a lobby that could vote. At least they get something now, right? We'll see.

[DavidRoss]

According to CNN:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the bill will reduce the deficit by $138 billion in the first decade and will reduce the deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the second decade. In addition, the CBO confirms the bill both reins in wasteful spending to extend the solvency of Medicare for almost 10 years and closes the prescription drug "doughnut" hole for seniors.

Yep, scary indeed.

Yes, John, many of us were very interested to see what the CBO would say about this. We've been discussing it on another thread, here: http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... 11&t=34483 . There appears to be much about the CBO evaluation that you do not understand; reading that thread might at least spur some interest in understanding why it means virtually nothing.

Let's put it this way: Imagine you are $100,000 dollars in debt. You have a plan to pay off that debt by paying installments with your credit cards, then paying off the credit cards with an inheritance from your aunt. You run the plan by an accountant who checks the figures and agrees they add up. That's what the CBO does: it checks whether the figures add up.

However, the accountant has no way of knowing whether you actually will make those installment payments, whether the credit card companies will permit you to keep borrowing on them, whether your aunt is rich or poor or if you even have an aunt, and--if you ever do get that inheritance you're counting on--whether you will pay off the debt as planned or spend it on a new fleet of custom jet skis! And just as the accountant's estimate of your plan does not speak to such issues, so the CBO estimate does not do a reality check on the contingencies counted on in the health care bill.

[keaggy220]

Our Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

I would like to know what children are dying in the this country due to the lack of receiving proper medical care? Give me some specific cases please.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.

The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance, accounting for 16,787 of some 38,649 children’s deaths nationwide during the period analyzed. *

*http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ly-to-die/

A guy I used to work with last year had a 1 year old daughter with a rare but life threatening health condition that required all kinds of expensive and elaborate treatment. She eventually succumbed to the disease and died, but not even slightly due to any lack of getting proper care.

And you know this how? Have you studied her medical records to see if she received her diagnosis in a timely manner, or if her treatments were all appropriate, or if complications were recognized and treated properly?

Her medical bills totaled like over 1 million dollars over her life. The father had no health insurance. Guess what? Medicaid paid for all of it.

The poorest families qualify for Medicaid, and many who make a little too much still cannot afford insurance--they are the ones who go bankrupt when a catastrophic illness strikes. And because Medicaid pays a very small fraction of the bill, the hospital jacks up the charges for those that can pay.

...And need I add, the irony of this is, if indeed this ultimately unfortunate little girl did get every proper treatment, she did have health care coverage, and it was a government-run plan.

Teresa

We should have offered universal care to all children long ago. This disproportionate funding allocated towards Medicare over S-CHIP was disgusting. The legislation we have now is simply going to water down what children would have gotten if children had a lobby that could vote. Most of the money is going to prescription drugs for heart disease.

And when the child turns 18 they are expected to go cold turkey off the government teat? I don't think so... They will be brought up slaves and won't know how to cope for themselves without mother government to guide them...

[living_stradivarius]

And when the child turns 18 they are expected to go cold turkey off the government teat?

That's what most kids do anyways when they leave their family insurance plans.

[keaggy220]

And when the child turns 18 they are expected to go cold turkey off the government teat?

That's what most kids do anyways when they leave their family insurance plans.

Yes, and they know their parents will always be there for them with no strings attached... Hmmm...

[MarkC]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

.....and shouting generally means the person doesn't have much of a point.

[Teresa B]

And when the child turns 18 they are expected to go cold turkey off the government teat? I don't think so... They will be brought up slaves and won't know how to cope for themselves without mother government to guide them...

I know I can't award a post o'the day, but you definitely win for the most purple prose.

Teresa

[Cosima__J]

Have I got this right? Under this new "reform", the government will subsidize uninsured families making $88,000 (or less) so they can buy insurance. Won't that include a large majority of uninsured families? Won't that amount to a huge sum of taxpayer money? How does that reduce the deficit?

[BWV 1080]

The debate would be alot more constructive if the right took more of a cue from Hayek rather than Rothbard or Rand.

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supersede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom."

-FA Hayek Road to Serfdom p 125

[JackC]

Have I got this right? Under this new "reform", the government will subsidize uninsured families making $88,000 (or less) so they can buy insurance. Won't that include a large majority of uninsured families? Won't that amount to a huge sum of taxpayer money? How does that reduce the deficit?

Even though some said it, no one in Congress seriously thinks that this will reduce the deficit, and to the credit of the American people, they didn't believe those claims either.


Oh and that $88,000 threshold -- I wonder how many DEM campaigns are going to be run in the future to raise the minimum so that MORE families an get the help they need. And when the Republicans protest because we can't afford it, the Dems will shoot back that they are heartless ghouls who want to see poor people die.

This was never about insuring the people who couldn't afford it. It was about creating a new entitlement system that can be used to buy votes for years to come.

[Seán]

12/07/1941;
09/11/2001;
03/21/2010?

I am not familiar with the rights and wrongs of the new Health Care bill, I don't really want to know either. However, that post is one of the most effective messages that I have seen in a long time. Well done sir.

[living_stradivarius]

And when the child turns 18 they are expected to go cold turkey off the government teat?

That's what most kids do anyways when they leave their family insurance plans.

Yes, and they know their parents will always be there for them with no strings attached... Hmmm...

Or more like they just deal with it. Same with leaving the house (not to mention the public school system, oh my another government institution ) and finding a job.

[MarkC]

Have I got this right? Under this new "reform", the government will subsidize uninsured families making $88,000 (or less) so they can buy insurance. Won't that include a large majority of uninsured families? Won't that amount to a huge sum of taxpayer money? How does that reduce the deficit?

Look closer before you start mocking.

You are assuming the idea is absurd. It's not.
Look closer.

[MarkC]

Even though some said it, no one in Congress seriously thinks that this will reduce the deficit, and to the credit of the American people, they didn't believe those claims either......

....and you too, please.

[keaggy220]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

.....and shouting generally means the person doesn't have much of a point.

Get ready comrade... Our ears will be bleeding before the end of the year!

[RebLem]

Our Health Scheme is not perfect but no parent need worry that his child
will die due to the lack of medical care.

I would like to know what children are dying in the this country due to the lack of receiving proper medical care? Give me some specific cases please.

A guy I used to work with last year had a 1 year old daughter with a rare but life threatening health condition that required all kinds of expensive and elaborate treatment. She eventually succumbed to the disease and died, but not even slightly due to any lack of getting proper care. Her medical bills totaled like over 1 million dollars over her life. The father had no health insurance. Guess what? Medicaid paid for all of it.

Here's one I posted Aug. 29. 2009. Maybe you missed it? Or maybe you put it out of mind for some reason, as these parents cannot. RebLem

The following is a letter to the editor of Corlyss's home town newspaper, the Logan (UT) Herald-Journal. RebLem

Health care reform needed

Published Monday, August 24, 2009 1:40 AM CDT

To the editor:

It is hard for someone who has had good health and is under the illusion that they are covered to understand what is going on in the health care system. I have rheumatoid arthritis. My husband’s career choices have been based on health coverage. He knows what it is like to wait all night in an emergency room and leave in the morning without being seen, to be charged more because you are paying yourself and to watch his family go without the treatment or drugs they need because of inability to pay.

In 2003 our youngest daughter had a liver transplant. In 2006 we moved to Utah and have experienced some distressing situations. My husband worked for a company that appeared to have adequate health insurance. The insurance company decided my daughter needed to take a generic form of her immunosuppressant. We argued with them with no success. We called UCSF where she got the transplant. They said to go ahead with the new drug but to monitor her carefully. She got sick. The transplant center said to hospitalize her. The insurance company did two things. They said that wasn’t the right generic, she needed to go on another and that they were going to do an “investigation” to make sure that they had to pay for her. While they were “investigating” they stopped paying all bills for our family. We called the Utah insurance commission, but Blue Cross is headquartered in another state so there was nothing they could do. [This is what is wrong with the goper notion that you ought to be able to buy health insurance across state lines.] Who fights for us?

I’m sad that this has become a fight between the conservatives and liberals. I’m so tired of hearing, “socialized medicine” and the “government can’t do anything right.” If the government makes mistakes at least it won’t be the predatory practices of insurance companies: Leaving the public to pick up the much more serious costs that result from the neglect of basic health care needs.

If I had to choose, at this point in our history, between public health care and public education I would give up education. I could give my children a good education if I had to, but I will never be able to perform a liver transplant on my 5-month-old baby.

We don’t want career choices based on medical insurance and doctors overruled by insurance companies. Let us urge our public officials to vote responsibly and for us in this upcoming session of Congress. We need to protect our children from the abuses of the current system. We can have the best health care system in the world, but not by burying our heads in the sand and pretending all is well.

Carol Tonnies

Richmond

http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/200 ... -24-09.txt

[rwetmore]

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.

The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance, accounting for 16,787 of some 38,649 children’s deaths nationwide during the period analyzed. *

*http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ly-to-die/

I've seen some of these studies before. The problem with them is they don't make any attempt whatsoever to account for the many possible hidden differences - they are assuming cause and effect. It's one of the first "no-nos" you learn in statistics 0.01 (like on the first day in the first chapter). It's also one of the most often used to ways to manipulate statistics to desired conclusions. There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

The vast majority of children who are uninsured probably come from poorer families. Poorer families are more likely to have neglectful or just plain ignorant parents, parents who are drug addicts, parents who have to work 2 jobs and aren't around to supervise, etc. Children who are poorer tend to live in more dangerous communities where there is more violence.

You are assuming that those numbers indicate that those deaths were the direct result of being denied the proper medical care by the healthcare industry. Highly doubtful.

And you know this how? Have you studied her medical records to see if she received her diagnosis in a timely manner, or if her treatments were all appropriate, or if complications were recognized and treated properly?

No, but it was a condition she was born with.

The poorest families qualify for Medicaid, and many who make a little too much still cannot afford insurance--they are the ones who go bankrupt when a catastrophic illness strikes. And because Medicaid pays a very small fraction of the bill, the hospital jacks up the charges for those that can pay.

The problem is there are not so-called 'catastrophic only' policies available out there. Because of this, you are correct, many may not be able to afford the kind of insurance policies currently available. But many may also decide to live in a slightly more expensive apartment, buy a more expensive home, car or flat screen tv instead of buying health insurance.

...And need I add, the irony of this is, if indeed this ultimately unfortunate little girl did get every proper treatment, she did have health care coverage, and it was a government-run plan.

Teresa

Yes, but for how much longer? Without the private sector sucking up the additional costs as you say, how much longer?

The fantasy world you live in is you think that just because everyone will be covered with gov't insurance means everyone will get the care they need. They won't. They can't. It is not possible. People are going to be denied care by the government...more and more will be denied as time passes and as the budgets go further and further into the red. The long term result, if we are lucky, will be the number of people who are denied care isn't higher than it is now, and only the quality of care goes down (for those who actually receive it). The far more likely long term result is more people will be denied care than in the current system, and the few that actually get care - it will be lower quality.