Health Care Summit

[AnnaG]

Really? And where is that right enumerated? In the Bill of Rights? In the constitution? The fact is, nowhere it days that food and shelter are basic rights, developed countries provide it because they can afford it. However, there are many poor countries in Asia and Africa which do not provide adequate food and shelter to their citizens.

Quit being so ridiculously obtuse. Everyone has the right to life and food and things like that are what supports life. The right tto life is contingent upon these things. It's just immensely stupid to have written in the Constitution that everyone has the right to life but not the right to stuff that supports life. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and the others would laugh their asses off at you.

Quite so, it just happens because your country can afford it. Countires which cannot afford to provide food and shleter to all its citizens do not guarantee it. It is not a guaranteed right.

Possibly. Hence they cannot guarantee the right to life.

But of course, ask people if government should give them a million dollars, and they will all answer yes. Same way, ask them if everybody should have health care, they will answer yes. But they don't want to pay for it.

Speak for yourself. You obviously can't speak for very many people.

 

[AnnaG]

I thought we were discussing whether food and shelter is a basic right. And it is not.

Only in your tiny little mind, apparently.

I know you don't support the health care reform, but don't exaggerate, that simply weakens your argument.

roflmao

NEWSFLASH - POT CALLS KETTLE BLACK

 

[Highball]

If the Democrats ram the Health Care bill as written through to be signed by the President I think it will result in several being defeated in their next reelection attempt. I also think it will make Obama a one term President. In my part of the nation there is a desire for Health care reform but not for a government takeover of Health care.

 

[ironsides]

Perfectly said.

 

[YukonJack]

Without being person-specific, those who insist that the only "RIGHTS" are rights that are included in the constitution, should compare the Constitution of the former Soviet Union (look it up, I give you no links) to either the Canadian Charter of Rights or the American Constitution.And then hang their empty heads in shame.

 

[ironsides]

Who is the lone Democrat some think could kill health care reform?

Anyone who's followed the health care debate even casually over the past year has probably heard Rep. Bart Stupak's name mentioned a time or two. The nine-term Democrat from Michigan is the author of the "Stupak Amendment ," a rider attached to the House health care legislation that would effectively ban most government funding of abortion under the new health care system. Now, as House and Senate leaders prepare to hammer out next steps, Stupak is claiming that he and a dozen or so antiabortion Democratic colleagues who supported the House bill in November will refuse to back any compromise bill that doesn't keep his amendment intact. That is more than enough votes to kill the legislation.
All of which might lead many outside the Beltway to wonder who Stupak is, and how he's come to wield such clout

Who is the lone Democrat some think could kill health care reform? - Yahoo! News

 

[ironsides]

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%


I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"
comparable to England or Canada .



Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."

 

[Bar Sinister]

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%


I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"
comparable to England or Canada .



Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."

Given the very right wing source, the statistics are quite possibly unreliable in that they probably only measure those who had access to health care. They probably do not include the many potential patients who were never diagnosed at all because they have no medical coverage or only limited medical coverage. In comparing health care systems there are several more reliable yardsticks that measure the success or failure of a health care system. These are:
1. What percentage of the population has access to health care?
2. What does it cost to run the system?
3. What is the overall impact of the health care system on such things as life expectancy, infant mortality, and the general health of the population?

I expect you are aware of the fact that when these questions are answered the US trails both Canada and the UK as well as several dozen other nations.

No one disputes that for those who have money or a good insurance plan the US health care system is excellent; quite possibly the best in the world. But it fails in the crucial three questions I asked above. What the US needs is a more comprehensive and more cost effective health care system; something that only a govern run universal health care program can offer. The point is that considering the amount of money the US puts into its health care system it should lead the world in every health category instead of trailing so badly in many leading health indicators.

 

[ironsides]

Oh yes, I can finally see how letting the goverment run our health care will save us money. We do have a lot of changing to do, but it should be with programs already robbing us blind.

Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs
PARKERSBURG, W.Va. – The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.
It's time to start cashing them in.
For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.
Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.
Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg's municipal offices.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_social_security_ious

 

[ironsides]

Given the very right wing source, the statistics are quite possibly unreliable in that they probably only measure those who had access to health care. They probably do not include the many potential patients who were never diagnosed at all because they have no medical coverage or only limited medical coverage. In comparing health care systems there are several more reliable yardsticks that measure the success or failure of a health care system. These are:
1. What percentage of the population has access to health care?
2. What does it cost to run the system?
3. What is the overall impact of the health care system on such things as life expectancy, infant mortality, and the general health of the population?

I expect you are aware of the fact that when these questions are answered the US trails both Canada and the UK as well as several dozen other nations.

No one disputes that for those who have money or a good insurance plan the US health care system is excellent; quite possibly the best in the world. But it fails in the crucial three questions I asked above. What the US needs is a more comprehensive and more cost effective health care system; something that only a govern run universal health care program can offer. The point is that considering the amount of money the US puts into its health care system it should lead the world in every health category instead of trailing so badly in many leading health indicators.

1. What percentage of the population has access to health care?
15.3: Percentage of the U.S. population that lacks health insurance as of 2007.

2. What does it cost to run the system?
about 2.4 trillion $7,900 per person

3. What is the overall impact of the health care system on such things as life expectancy, infant mortality, and the general health of the population?

Good question. I wonder how you can break that question into those that have and have not health care.

We could and maybe do now have a problem with the quality and amount of doctors that are willing to work for and take what ever the goverment pays as full payment. I know we could always require any new doctor to do their internship and a year or two to treat those on medicaid before going out and making their fortunes.
I never said we don't need a health care system, we need a change and better monitoring of what we now have. The "medicare program could be expanded for a lot less money than getting rid of or penalizing private insurers.
What Is Medicare?

Congress established both Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's social services programs. Medicare is a federal program specifically designed for Americans over age 65 and for some people under 65 who have disabilities.

Original Medicare has two parts: Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (coverage for doctor services, outpatient hospital care, and some medical services not covered by Part A). Controversial and costly prescription drug coverage, HR 1, Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, was added in 2003; it took effect in 2006.
We also have a program called "Medicaid", not as good as medicare, but covers pretty much everyone else.
What Is Medicaid?

Medicaid is a jointly funded, Federal-State health insurance program for low-income and needy people. It covers children, the aged, blind, and/or disabled and other people who are eligible to receive federally assisted income maintenance payments.


I know I do want to have the option of paying for a "Cadillac plan" (what ever Obama meant by that) and not being fined for doing it.

 

[pfezziwig]

I'ld like to see everyone covered in the US but adding another trillion + to the deficit now will cripple the Amercian economy for 10 years, resulting in even worse suffering as the social safety net collapses under bankruptcy.

Does anyone seriously believe deficit spending is the solution to healthcare problems?

 

[ironsides]

America Rising

Power Line - America Rising

no comment

 

[DaSleeper]

MY HEALTH CARE PLAN
by Ann Coulter
March 17, 2010

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!

It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."

Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan.

In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.

The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.

That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.

President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.

Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.

It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer.

The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)

Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.

Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.)

This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance!

My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.

For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."

Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.

That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity."

What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year.

Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long.

If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.

I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?")

The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.

Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.

In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.

Feel free to steal it, Republicans!

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'ld like to see everyone covered in the US but adding another trillion + to the deficit now will cripple the Amercian economy for 10 years, resulting in even worse suffering as the social safety net collapses under bankruptcy.

Does anyone seriously believe deficit spending is the solution to healthcare problems?

According to CBO calculations (a non partisan Congressional entity), the bill will reduce the deficit by 1.4 trillion $ over 10 or 20 years, it is not expected to add anything to the deficit.

 

[TenPenny]

I think the part that Ann Coulter is missing is the part where, under an unrestrained free market, no insurance company will continue to carry you if you get cancer, diabetes, ms, alzheimers, or any major long-term illness.

If anyone out there believes that insurance companies would do anything except run, as fast as possible, from people with long-term, expensive illnesses, you have another thought coming.

Insurance is about managing risk, and the way to manage risk is to get rid of it when it becomes high.

If Ann Coulter doesn't believe this, I think she should personally guarantee to pay all of the medical bills of 10 random families in perpetuity, in return for, say $50 per month.

 

[VanIsle]

I think the part that Ann Coulter is missing is the part where, under an unrestrained free market, no insurance company will continue to carry you if you get cancer, diabetes, ms, alzheimers, or any major long-term illness.

If anyone out there believes that insurance companies would do anything except run, as fast as possible, from people with long-term, expensive illnesses, you have another thought coming.

Insurance is about managing risk, and the way to manage risk is to get rid of it when it becomes high.

If Ann Coulter doesn't believe this, I think she should personally guarantee to pay all of the medical bills of 10 random families in perpetuity, in return for, say $50 per month.

Well - health care just passed in the USA. All Americans have until 2014 to sign up or after that they are breaking the law. The news also stated that insurance companies will no longer be able to "drop" a client because they are ill.

 

[ironsides]

According to CBO calculations (a non partisan Congressional entity), the bill will reduce the deficit by 1.4 trillion $ over 10 or 20 years, it is not expected to add anything to the deficit.

I hope they are right, because if their not the U.S. cannot recover.

Would the executive order concerning abortion change the health care overhaul?
On Sunday, a bloc of House Democrats announced they would support the health care bill as long as President Obama signed an executive order to clarify that no taxpayer dollars could be spent on abortion because of it. The executive order essentially reiterates the long-standing restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions except for cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the woman's life. The bill already included similar restrictions, but Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and others were concerned that funding for community health centers and other programs could still end up paying for abortion services since it was not explicitly addressed in the bill. The executive order was designed to reassure those lawmakers. However, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) noted that a future president could still overturn the executive order, and some House Democrats want to end the existing restrictions.
-- Ryan Teague Beckwith, Congress.org
http://www.congress.org/news/2010/03/22/will_the_executive_order_restrict_abortion

What will happen to the Medicare Part D "donut hole"?
In 2003, Congress created a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program for seniors. In order to keep the cost of the program down, the benefit runs out after recipients have reached a set amount — currently $2,830 a year. Recipients then have to pay their own way until they reach another dollar amount — currently $6,440. This gap in coverage is known as the "donut hole." The bill would provide a one-time $250 rebate for people who fall into the donut hole this year. Starting in 2011, it would create a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs for recipients in the donut hole. That would increase to 75 percent by 2020, with the federal government paying the rest of the cost of the drugs.
-- Ryan Teague Beckwith, Congress.org
http://www.congress.org/news/2010/03/22/what_will_happen_to_the_donut_hole