 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2009Why is the Health Care Bill being Rushed ???
The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline rapidly in the next few years. They need to lock in their profits NOW before its too late. That's the reason they want this medical bill rushed through. They know the retirees and baby boomers soon to retire will complain loudly if the govt finds the program too expsneive down the road. It will be impossible to reverse course. A lot of the 'financial advisors' to the govt are nothing more than lobbyists for various industries (financial/banking.. and now medical). http://video.foxbusiness.com/7013024/cavutos-deal-whats-the-rush/?category_id=12 92d14d0e3afdcf0b31500afefb92724c08f046 > The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline > rapidly in the next few years. Well... If the medical bill does what it is designed to do the medical insurance industry will have a lot less purchasing power and that's for sure. > They need to lock in their profits NOW before its too late. Yes.. The insurance companies are investing very heavily in Max Baucus and others and it lots of TV ads to scare everyone and lie, and lie, and lie. > That's the reason they want this medical bill rushed through. None of the real democrats are n any big hurry. The longer it takes the worse the Republicans will look. > They know the retirees and baby boomers soon to retire will complain > loudly if the govt finds the program too expsneive down the road. It > will be impossible to reverse course. That is actually an impossibility if this morphs into single payer which it will if done right. > A lot of the 'financial advisors' to the govt are nothing more than > lobbyists for various industries (financial/banking.. and now medical). That is simply wrong. _ALL_ of the advisors are lobbyists. > http://video.foxbusiness.com/7013024/cavutos-deal-whats-the-rush/?category_id=12 92d14d0e3afdcf0b31500afefb92724c08f046 Ah yes... Cavuto. There's the voice of reason. :)  Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson > The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline > rapidly in the next few years. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://video.foxbusiness.com/7013024/cavutos-deal-whats-the-rush/?cat... I t really doesn't matter as the congress and senate have pretty much already decided how it's gonna be and it won't be like that idiot Obama wants it to be.They have decided that it will be best for the people to go out and purchase theri own health insurance which will work providing the insurance company's offer some pakages that the lower and middle class's can afford.As far as any type of socialized health care though,well it's just not gonna happen > The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline > rapidly in the next few years. Not only is that unlikely, a reduction in American purchasing power would move to make medical care more affordable. Medical care has risen in cost while American purchasing power escalated. > They need to lock in their profits NOW before its too late. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://video.foxbusiness.com/7013024/cavutos-deal-whats-the-rush/?category_id=12 92d14d0e3afdcf0b31500afefb92724c08f046 Looks like Obamacare is DOA anyhow. You can't really have universal coverage and reduced cost. We'll see. -- Les Cargill >> The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline >> rapidly in the next few years. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > We'll see. Oh but you _can_ have universal coverage and reduced cost. All the other civilized nations prove that every day. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson >>> The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline >>> rapidly in the next few years. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Oh but you _can_ have universal coverage and reduced cost. All the other > civilized nations prove that every day. No, not all do. Is it a "Frontline"? < checks> Yup. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ Really quite interesting. Methods vary widely. I was surprised how close Germany's system is to ours - but I don't think we're moving that way. Maybe you missed it. Ask the CBO. <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/16/bombshell-cbo-chief-tells-congress-obamaca re-will-significantly-expand-federal-spending/> "Yesterday Congressional Budget Office Chief Douglas Elmendorf testified in the Senate about the two bills. Sen. Kent Conrad asked if the current legislation would "bend the cost curve." The short answer: Not a chance. Elmendorf later added: "In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."" http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/17/healthcare-obama-employer-business-healthcare-o bamacare.html Perhaps it's just when things are being sampled, but nobody's made a clear case for how cost will be *reduced*. -- Les Cargill >>>> The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will >>>> decline rapidly in the next few years. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > No, not all do. Is it a "Frontline"? < checks> Yup. All of these examples from "Frontline" say that I am correct. The cost of health care in every case is lower than the US. > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ > > Really quite interesting. Methods vary widely. I was surprised how close > Germany's system is to ours - but I don't think we're moving that way. The German system appears to be the least effective and the worst case with Britain running second. > Maybe you missed it. Ask the CBO. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant > amount."" You are doing the same thing as the typical rightarded Republican and the news media and in truth, the entire establishment. You are looking only at the tax increases and not at the reductions in the cost of health care experienced by the citizens. I read the CBO stuff and it says that government will be bearing a greater burden of costs for health care. That is _ALL_ it says. It does not speak of health care costs as a percentage of GDP and it does not speak of health care costs to the citizens. In every case study the other countries deliver care at a lower cost to the people and they deliver it to all. It is the total that we pay for health care that matters. If we pay higher taxes but the direct costs to us including insurance and co-pays is reduced by more than the tax increases than we have benefited. > http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/17/healthcare-obama-employer-business-healthcare-o bamacare.html > > Perhaps it's just when things are being sampled, but nobody's made a > clear case for how cost will be *reduced*. I don't think it matters any more. I have come to the point where I really do not care to discuss it any longer. That abject stupidity and rhetorical excuses for sucking the butts of the private insurance companies has become so overwhelmingly sickening as to end any further discussion. The Congress can pass a bill that puts the insurance companies out of business or that will put them out of business if they fail to cut costs or I will do all I can to defeat my current representatives in the coming elections. That is all I can do but it is what I will do. The private health insurance companies, both profit and non-profit, are responsible for the escalating costs of health care in this country. Any plan that is not at least a stepping stone to addressing that particular problem will just make matters worse. Any plan that does not directly address that malady will be just like the Republican hand outs to the pharmaceutical companies disguised as "The Senior Drug Bill". This stupidity of focusing on government costs is quite telling. It is the typical rightarded lying. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson >>>>> The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will >>>>> decline rapidly in the next few years. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > All of these examples from "Frontline" say that I am correct. The cost > of health care in every case is lower than the US. Yes, but *will* we have reduced cost? >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The German system appears to be the least effective and the worst case > with Britain running second. Aye. >> Maybe you missed it. Ask the CBO. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > at the tax increases and not at the reductions in the cost of health care > experienced by the citizens. I can't find any data on the cost reductions. Anywhere. Well, other than the examples set in the Frontline piece. But we're assuming something will come along to make that happen. It's *GOING* to be a subsidy. And while I'm trying to be open minded, I have to express skepticism than this will result in truly lowered cost. The Administration needs - *needs* - to be selling this, hard - as in *in a data-driven fashion*. The cost reductions are supposed to be: Health IT investment, which will reduce unnecessary spending in the system thatresults from preventable errors and inefficient paper billing systems; Okay - that's what, 1.3%? http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/ says savings are on the order of $30B out of 2.2T. Improving prevention and management of chronic conditions; Riiiiiiight. Nonsense. This translates to smoking and fat, neither of which are very tractable. I'm extremely skeptical here - it's just far too profound a situation to hold as fertile soil. It also directly impacts matters of individual choice, makes us look *more* like cattle on a feedlot to be "managed"... Increasing insurance industry competition and reducing underwriting costs and profits, which will reduce insurance overhead; Maybe - and this goes to your point. Savings potential - unknown. BCBS is a not-for-profit, anyway. Providing reinsurance for catastrophic coverage, which will reduce insurance premiums; Cool. No problem here. Sensible. and Making health insurance universal, which will reduce spending on uncompensated care. Possible ... virtual savings because of renormalization of price structure. *a* figure of $125B is bandied about, making up about 1/16th of total cost. > I read the CBO stuff and it says that > government will be bearing a greater burden of costs for health care. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > companies has become so overwhelmingly sickening as to end any further > discussion. Well, that's what happened with Hillarycare. And if I may, ... it can't be cheaper to "forklift upgrade" the existing system, because barriers to entry rise over time. If you accept the theory of revealed preferences, then the present cost structure means something. Maybe it means that insurance companies are good at seeking rent. But that's ... either unlikely or not the whole story. > The Congress can pass a bill that puts the insurance > companies out of business or that will put them out of business if they > fail to cut costs or I will do all I can to defeat my current > representatives in the coming elections. That is all I can do but it is > what I will do. I understand, and this well-reflects one significant weakness in doing things this way. I have materials to look at related to the establishment of the NHS in Britain, but I haven't gone over them yet. But 1948 was a bleak time there. > The private health insurance companies, both profit and non-profit, are > responsible for the escalating costs of health care in this country. Eh.... I wish that's all there was to it. Maybe it is - I can't really say. > Any > plan that is not at least a stepping stone to addressing that particular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stupidity of focusing on government costs is quite telling. It is the > typical rightarded lying. I try to be kinder :) - it's half measures which are simply easier to swallow politically. -- Les Cargill >>>>>> The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will >>>>>> decline rapidly in the next few years. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> > Yes, but *will* we have reduced cost? It depends on how badly the politicians screw up the transition. And that evaluation depends on proper accounting which we will probably probably never get. At present we all feel that we KNOW that the providers are overcharging the paying customers in order to provide services to the indigent. If government pays directly for indigent care then will we see a decrease in the fees charged the paying customers? The AMA says no. If left to the "market" to realize the savings then we will probably not see much in the way of savings. >>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > The Administration needs - *needs* - to be selling this, hard - as in > *in a data-driven fashion*. That approach will do not good. Americans are not data weenies. They believe what the tube tells them. > The cost reductions are supposed to be: Health IT investment, which > will reduce unnecessary spending in the system thatresults from > preventable errors and inefficient paper billing systems; > > Okay - that's what, 1.3%? It is probably a lot more then that. > http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/ says savings are on the order of $30B > out of 2.2T. Like I said: Most Americans will believe what they are told by some "authoritative source". Unfortunately, most such sources are funded by the people who want the status quo. > Improving prevention and management of chronic conditions; > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > impacts matters of individual choice, makes us look *more* like cattle > on a feedlot to be "managed"... There are good ways to do this and it is highly unlikely that the pols will do it right. I tend to agree with you on this one. > Increasing insurance industry competition and reducing underwriting > costs and profits, which will reduce insurance overhead; > > Maybe - and this goes to your point. Savings potential - unknown. BCBS > is a not-for-profit, anyway. Not-for profit does not prevent the gouging although it may help. > Providing reinsurance for catastrophic coverage, which will reduce > insurance premiums; > > Cool. No problem here. Sensible. YEP!!! BIG ONE!!! > and > Making health insurance universal, which will reduce spending on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > structure. *a* figure of $125B is bandied about, making up about 1/16th > of total cost. If left to the market it won't work. Too much greed. >> I read the CBO stuff and it says that government will be bearing a >> greater burden of costs for health care. That is _ALL_ it says. It [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > good at seeking rent. But that's ... either unlikely or not the whole > story. It is not "unlikely" at all. They add absolutely no value to the system. Thus, every dime they haul off is _rent_. > > The Congress can pass a bill that puts the insurance >> companies out of business or that will put them out of business if they [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I try to be kinder :) - it's half measures which are simply easier to > swallow politically. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson > Michael Coburn wrote >>> fruitella wrote >>>> The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline rapidly in the next few years. >>> Not only is that unlikely, a reduction in American purchasing power >>> would move to make medical care more affordable. Medical care has risen in cost while American purchasing power >>> escalated. >>>> They need to lock in their profits NOW before its too late. >>>> That's the reason they want this medical bill rushed through. >>>> They know the retirees and baby boomers soon to retire will >>>> complain loudly if the govt finds the program too expsneive down the road. It will be impossible to reverse >>>> course. >>>> A lot of the 'financial advisors' to the govt are nothing more than >>>> lobbyists for various industries (financial/banking.. and now medical). >>>> http://video.foxbusiness.com/7013024/cavutos-deal-whats-the-rush/? >> category_id=1292d14d0e3afdcf0b31500afefb92724c08f046 >>> Looks like Obamacare is DOA anyhow. You can't really have universal >>> coverage and reduced cost. >>> We'll see. >> Oh but you _can_ have universal coverage and reduced cost. All the other civilized nations prove that every day. > No, not all do. Fraid so. EVERY other modern first world country gets its health care costs for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does. > Is it a "Frontline"? < checks> Yup. > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ Doesnt say that any other modern first world country that has a universal health care system spends a bigger percentage of GDP than the US does. AND some of them get a rather better result than the US does on any sensible measure like longevity, lack of bankruptcy as a result of a serious medical problem etc etc etc too. > Really quite interesting. Methods vary widely. I was > surprised how close Germany's system is to ours But it doesnt cost anything like as much as a percentage of GDP. > - but I don't think we're moving that way. > Maybe you missed it. Ask the CBO. Its completely irrelevant. What matters is evidence, not claims. > <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/16/bombshell-cbo-chief-tells-congress-obamaca re-will-significantly-expand-federal-spending/> > "Yesterday Congressional Budget Office Chief Douglas Elmendorf > testified in the Senate about the two bills. Sen. Kent Conrad asked > if the current legislation would "bend the cost curve." The short > answer: Not a chance. Irrelevant to that point that Corburn made. > Elmendorf later added: "In the legislation that has been reported we > do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to > reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."" > http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/17/healthcare-obama-employer-business-healthcare-o bamacare.html > Perhaps it's just when things are being sampled, Nope. > but nobody's made a clear case for how cost will be *reduced*. Look at how every other modern first world country has done that. > fruitella wrote >> The medical industry knows that American purchasing power will decline rapidly in the next few years. > Not only is that unlikely, Impossible, actually. That didnt even happen during the great depression. > a reduction in American purchasing power would move to make medical care more affordable. Medical care has risen in > cost while American purchasing power escalated. Essentially because we can do a lot more than we used to be able to do. You dont just get to die when you have a heart attack now etc. >> They need to lock in their profits NOW before its too late. >> That's the reason they want this medical bill rushed through. >> They know the retirees and baby boomers soon to retire will complain loudly if the govt finds the program too >> expsneive down the road. It will be impossible to reverse course. >> A lot of the 'financial advisors' to the govt are nothing more than >> lobbyists for various industries (financial/banking.. and now medical). >> http://video.foxbusiness.com/7013024/cavutos-deal-whats-the-rush/?category_id=12 92d14d0e3afdcf0b31500afefb92724c08f046 > Looks like Obamacare is DOA anyhow. Probably. > You can't really have universal coverage and reduced cost. Corse you can. Every other modern first world country gets universal coverage for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US pisses against the wall. > We'll see. We will indeed. Its just a tad unlikely that the US will actually be stupid enough to stick with the current system forever with more and more ending up getting bankrupted by a serious medical problem etc even when they have health insurance. Even the stupidest american voter wont wear that forever. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.