On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:12:26 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:



...and the points about alternative solutions are merely ignored? Harry
isn't the only one trying to kill the messenger while failing to look at
ideas.

There's all kinds of "ideas." Then there's the "status quo" and fear
of change.
Tort reform should be a big part of any change. Knocks down defensive
medicine costs and malpractice premiums.
Big savings there.
Huge mistake by Obama not insisting on that. Undermines his
credibility.

--Vic

On Aug 7, 9:50*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:12:26 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:



...and the points about alternative solutions are merely ignored? Harry
isn't the only one trying to kill the messenger while failing to look at
ideas.

There's all kinds of "ideas." *Then there's the "status quo" and fear
of change.
Tort reform should be a big part of any change. *Knocks down defensive
medicine costs and malpractice premiums.
Big savings there.
Huge mistake by Obama not insisting on that. *Undermines his
credibility.

--Vic *

No dem on earth will ever get behind tort reform. Lawyers are big
contributors to the Dems. This is one big reason we will never have
real health care reform.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:50:47 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


Huge mistake by Obama not insisting on that. Undermines his
credibility.

Maybe, but it's too early to say with certainty. I see this plan as
pretty mild, trying to get something passed without stepping on too may
toes, trying to get a consensus. That doesn't seem to be working.
Perhaps, he should have gone all-in and gone for a true single player
plan, screw the health insurers, screw the pharmaceuticals, and made the
choice much clearer.

The Republicans are also not without risk in this. Sure, if they kill
this plan, they damage Obama, but that will leave us without *any* health
care reform. Something, the majority of Americans want. Come the next
election, without any reform, would you rather be Obama who tried, or the
Republicans, the party of no? I could be wrong, but I don't see
Republicans winning on this. Americans have short political memories,
but our health care situation will remain a reminder.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:07:38 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:50:47 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


Huge mistake by Obama not insisting on that. Undermines his
credibility.

Maybe, but it's too early to say with certainty. I see this plan as
pretty mild, trying to get something passed without stepping on too may
toes, trying to get a consensus. That doesn't seem to be working.
Perhaps, he should have gone all-in and gone for a true single player
plan, screw the health insurers, screw the pharmaceuticals, and made the
choice much clearer.

The Republicans are also not without risk in this. Sure, if they kill
this plan, they damage Obama, but that will leave us without *any* health
care reform. Something, the majority of Americans want. Come the next
election, without any reform, would you rather be Obama who tried, or the
Republicans, the party of no? I could be wrong, but I don't see
Republicans winning on this. Americans have short political memories,
but our health care situation will remain a reminder.

Yep. Agee with all that. Reps just solidifying their reputation as
The Party of No. Don't know about going single payer quickly though.
Too disruptive in many ways. The gov option would be a way to ease
into single payer over a long time, or for private insurance to get
competitive. Haven't heard about the gov option being required to run
on the black side of the line, but that should be required.
About Obama's credibility, that's my estimation as an Independent.
Tort reform would tackle the malpractice insurance and defensive
medicine costs on the cost side. I'm no expert on it, but I've heard
(think Lou Dobbs addressed it in one of his pieces on foreign health
care) that countries with national health care have more sane tort
systems.
It's just a question of doing the logical things to contain costs, and
since I don't question Obama's intelligence, what's left?
Trial lawyer politics. Not good. He should be above that, and could
actually carry it off. Same with pushing nuclear energy harder, which
he should be doing.
Besides, from a political perspective, he'd have the Reps voting "Nay
on tort reform. Because they won't vote "Aye" on any reform bill
put out by the Dems or Obama.
Most of the Reps are turning wacko. Sad to see.

--Vic

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:02:13 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


Yep. Agee with all that. Reps just solidifying their reputation as The
Party of No. Don't know about going single payer quickly though. Too
disruptive in many ways. The gov option would be a way to ease into
single payer over a long time, or for private insurance to get
competitive. Haven't heard about the gov option being required to run
on the black side of the line, but that should be required.

I'd agree that single-payer wouldn't float in the present climate, but
then, at least, we might have a health care debate. As it stands, we
have a euthanasia, and government "take over" of Medicare debate. I'd
also suggest, any plan that requires all of us to purchase health
insurance, without a government option to provide some competition, would
be a disaster.


About
Obama's credibility, that's my estimation as an Independent. Tort reform
would tackle the malpractice insurance and defensive medicine costs on
the cost side. I'm no expert on it, but I've heard (think Lou Dobbs
addressed it in one of his pieces on foreign health care) that countries
with national health care have more sane tort systems.

I'm always a little leery of "tort reform". I can understand providing a
low-end threshold before allowing a suit, but I have seen to many medical
disasters to be willing to give up my rights to sue. If some drunken or
incompetent Doctor screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know
my family is taken care of.


It's just a question of doing the logical things to contain costs, and
since I don't question Obama's intelligence, what's left? Trial lawyer
politics. Not good. He should be above that, and could actually carry
it off. Same with pushing nuclear energy harder, which he should be
doing.
Besides, from a political perspective, he'd have the Reps voting "Nay on
tort reform. Because they won't vote "Aye" on any reform bill put out
by the Dems or Obama.
Most of the Reps are turning wacko. Sad to see.

Yup, two ideologies bashing out the ideas to come up with workable
solutions, works. From my perspective, the Republicans are behaving like
spoiled children. They weren't elected to provide "wins" for
Republicans. They were elected to provide wins for the American people.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:20:59 -0400, wrote:


If we did get rid of all the insurance companies wouldn't we need to
give them a massive bailout?
You do understand the big 5 (health insurers) are quite a bit bigger
than AIG and that was deemed "too big to fail". Is the plan really
going to be to throw more people out of work that GM and Chrysler
combined? I think not, that is why I say we can't afford this.

Single payer doesn't mean no insurance companies. There are many
flavors of it. Netherlands has a variety of single payer, private
insurance, pick your own doctor, blah, blah, blah.
It's about half the cost, longer life span, and more doctors per
patient.
So your view that private insurance will disappear with single payer
is just wrong.
We're reinventing the wheel here because of special interests..
That's the nature of things here. Same deal with nuke energy.

--Vic