This health care thing.
Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen
should have affordable access to health care.
Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay,
they won't say it.
So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it
happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health
insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated.
The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option.
That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could
basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood.
You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to
address the issues that have Medicare in the red.
But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that
subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is
taken.
Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes
will go up.
Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k
will see higher taxes."
That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills.
I've said before here that many families are already "taxed" 15-30%
for health insurance.
Obama would have been smarter to say if your income tax goes up to fix
health care, your health care costs will go way down if you're in the
lower income brackets.
It's not rocket science.
But I really don't think he was thinking clearly about the magnitude
of the health care problem when he was running for prez.
Now he's got himself locked in. Just like the elder Bush did with
"Read my lips."
Language and the words you choose are important.
Of course the Reps have made the same mistake by touting subsidies to
pay health insurance companies to counter the Dems call for a "public
option."
They said it, and they won't be able to retreat. But it has to be
paid for whether you're paying it toward Medicare or private health
insurance companies.
Anyway, just something to think about.
I think the health insurance/care situation will get better because
they are fighting it out.
I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and
man, it's a complicated subject.
Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
This health care thing.
Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen
should have affordable access to health care.
Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay,
they won't say it.

Maybe. Depends on your definition of "affordable" access. The insurance
companies certainly want to insure everyone... for a price.

So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it
happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health
insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated.

I'm suspicious of this, mainly due to the windfall that will ensue for the
insurance companies. Sounds like a meal ticket to me.

The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option.
That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could
basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood.
You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to
address the issues that have Medicare in the red.

I think that would be totally fine. We can fix Medicare.

But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that
subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is
taken.
Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes
will go up.
Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k
will see higher taxes."
That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills.

I think you're probably right, but it could easily be a lower threshhold and
that would pay for it. Personally, I'm willing to pay a bit more in tax for
my possible benefit and for the definite benefit of others. I was taught to
be thrifty and generous, especially toward those who are less well off.

I've said before here that many families are already "taxed" 15-30%
for health insurance.
Obama would have been smarter to say if your income tax goes up to fix
health care, your health care costs will go way down if you're in the
lower income brackets.
It's not rocket science.

I agree!!

But I really don't think he was thinking clearly about the magnitude
of the health care problem when he was running for prez.
Now he's got himself locked in. Just like the elder Bush did with
"Read my lips."
Language and the words you choose are important.

I'm not sure he's locked in all that much, but I do agree that it's a huge
issue, probably more complex than even he thought. Something is going to
happen wrt healthcare.

Of course the Reps have made the same mistake by touting subsidies to
pay health insurance companies to counter the Dems call for a "public
option."
They said it, and they won't be able to retreat. But it has to be
paid for whether you're paying it toward Medicare or private health
insurance companies.
Anyway, just something to think about.
I think the health insurance/care situation will get better because
they are fighting it out.
I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and
man, it's a complicated subject.
Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile.

Whew... I don't think I could do that, even if the alternative is watching
the clothes dryer. Hats off to you!

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:55:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

This health care thing.
Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen
should have affordable access to health care.
Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay,
they won't say it.
So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it
happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health
insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated.
The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option.
That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could
basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood.
You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to
address the issues that have Medicare in the red.
But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that
subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is
taken.
Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes
will go up.
Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k
will see higher taxes."
That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills.
I've said before here that many families are already "taxed" 15-30%
for health insurance.
Obama would have been smarter to say if your income tax goes up to fix
health care, your health care costs will go way down if you're in the
lower income brackets.
It's not rocket science.
But I really don't think he was thinking clearly about the magnitude
of the health care problem when he was running for prez.
Now he's got himself locked in. Just like the elder Bush did with
"Read my lips."
Language and the words you choose are important.
Of course the Reps have made the same mistake by touting subsidies to
pay health insurance companies to counter the Dems call for a "public
option."
They said it, and they won't be able to retreat. But it has to be
paid for whether you're paying it toward Medicare or private health
insurance companies.
Anyway, just something to think about.
I think the health insurance/care situation will get better because
they are fighting it out.
I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and
man, it's a complicated subject.
Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile.

--Vic

When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers,
teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain
something of any complexity to the public.

The Republicans say that they want health care reform but don't want
any of what that requires.

Several of the most influential Dems are in the HC industry's pocket
so they have to play their cards right.

Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea
I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain. I
hope some simple explanations can be mined so the apparently shallow
public can get with it.

jps

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 22:01:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
This health care thing.
Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen
should have affordable access to health care.
Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay,
they won't say it.

Maybe. Depends on your definition of "affordable" access. The insurance
companies certainly want to insure everyone... for a price.

The "affordable" part is where the gov subsidies come in.
Without gov bargaining power in controlling costs, ala the "public
option," insurance companies will have the taxpayer by the balls.
The subsidies themselves will be based on income level, whichever way
it goes.

So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it
happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health
insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated.

I'm suspicious of this, mainly due to the windfall that will ensue for the
insurance companies. Sounds like a meal ticket to me.

Of course, but corporate welfare is a long-honored tradition.
American as apple pie.

The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option.
That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could
basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood.
You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to
address the issues that have Medicare in the red.

I think that would be totally fine. We can fix Medicare.

Right. By raising taxes to pay for it. And going harder after fraud.
That has to be admitted.

But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that
subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is
taken.
Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes
will go up.
Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k
will see higher taxes."
That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills.

I think you're probably right, but it could easily be a lower threshhold and
that would pay for it. Personally, I'm willing to pay a bit more in tax for
my possible benefit and for the definite benefit of others. I was taught to
be thrifty and generous, especially toward those who are less well off.

Yes, I felt I was being undertaxed when I was working, given the
ever-increasing national debt, my disposable income, and my costs
compared to those making a tenth of my salary/benefit package.
Wouldn't have minded paying more taxes to set health care straight.
It was no secret to me when I went to the cafeteria and bought those
company-subsidized meals served by just above min wage workers that
they took their kids to the e-room when they got sick, and that I had
the best health care for mine without really noticing the paycheck
deductions.
Some might say "**** them, they should have got your job."
Though I don't generally argue much against that sentiment, I don't
buy it at all concerning health care.
But most folks just resent taxes, even if they ultimately benefit from
them. No way around it really.
And politicians encourage shallow thought. Gets them re-elected.
Understand I'm a hard-ass on wasteful spending, and don't trust the
gov to spend wisely and without fraud.
But that happens in business too. Seen it first hand.
At least I have the ability to raise hell with the pols and toss them
out when they get out of hand.

I'm not sure he's locked in all that much, but I do agree that it's a huge
issue, probably more complex than even he thought. Something is going to
happen wrt healthcare.

He'll have to backtrack, and take the political hit.
We'll see the fragility of his ego. Or its fortitude.

I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and
man, it's a complicated subject.
Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile.

Whew... I don't think I could do that, even if the alternative is watching
the clothes dryer. Hats off to you!

I was a computer systems analyst, so it was no problem.
It's much more fun seeing real people make spoken arguments than
extracting them from silent data flows and technical mumbo-jumbo.
Besides, there was absolutely no procedural stuff, just discussion.
One argument involved teaching Senator Coburn the meaning of the word
"mandate." I initially thought he had some good points, but they
were quickly dismantled.
After all, he's a doctor. Forgot for a moment he's also a politician.
He was arguing that gov health care guidelines were "mandates," since
he could be sued for malpractice for simply walking outside the
guidelines in treating a patient whose condition and history dictated
to his judgement a different treatment.
You know, the "gov coming between patient and doctor" argument.
As if health insurance companies don't make a living off that.
He was allowed to whine for a while, then was instructed by a lawyer
type Senator - maybe Schumer - that treatment guidelines are normal
medical practice, not rigid rules, and that when defendants go to
court charged with malpractice all that is currently and commonly
thrashed out. Didn't know that myself.
But it shut him up.
Subterfuge is an art of the politician, and I have no special immunity
from it.
That's why you have to listen closely to both sides and get your brain
cells working.
You can't trust either side to tell the whole truth.
Another discussion involved pointing out Coburn's hypocrisy in whining
about a seemingly sensible amendment costing $17 billion in lost
revenue, when he had proffered one that would cost about $60 billion.
His response was since he's basically against everything the Dems are
doing, his hypocrisy is irrelevant. But he was ****ed he was cornered
into saying that.
The amendment costing $17 billion in lost revenue, offered by Dem
Bingaman from NM, would lower the penalty for not buying insurance
from $1500 to $750.
This is for individuals and small business owners. So here you get a
Rep arguing against lowering the costs of small businesses.
The world is upside down. Interesting to watch.
Same type of thing has the Reps offering gov subsidies to buy private
health insurance. There is a big sea change in health insurance
occurring, behind all the bumper sticker BS.
If you're a stock trader and pick right, it's good action. Almost has
me wanting to take a stab, but I don't trade equities.
Got a feeling the insurance companies are going to get rich in the
short term, until the public wises up.
That's what the Reps want, and the bought and paid for Dems too.
Taxpayer money of course. Corporate Welfare.
Ala GM, AIG, BOA, Goldman Sachs, et al.
There was discussion about the penalty amendment not being "marked" by
the CBO, so the real costs were just a ballpark estimate.
The amendment was left up in the air I think.
Also discussed about the "penalty for not buying insurance" was the
number of employees a small business needed for the kick in.
Since it was set at 25 employees, the question was raised whether the
26th employee hired would require all employees to be covered.
This could keep companies from hiring beyond 25.
The answer was "No, it would only be required that the 26th - or 1 of
the 26 be covered."
Well, that clearly answered the question, but it doesn't seem to make
much sense.
Doesn't make sense to me to have 26 employees and provide only 1
coverage. Even worse would be to have 50 and provide 25 of them
coverage.
Wouldn't do much for employee morale, would it?
The red team and the blue team instead of one team.
Say, that sounds familiar somehow.
Maybe they didn't see this in their sausage making, since they didn't
examine it further - or maybe they were tired of all the arguing.
But maybe the gov starts picking up the full insurance cost at the
26th employee, through payment to the employer. Don't know.
Don't know at what number of employees the gov payments would stop
because you're no longer a "small business" either.
Whatever that number is, it would present another hiring issue.
But I can't make assumptions without more info.
Does seem this is a conundrum of employer-based health insurance.
Probably all political BS due to the "sacred cow" nature of small
business.
During the break, a Congressional analyst that C-Span had there
explained that the House bill imposed a 2% income penalty for not
buying insurance, which would raise much more revenue than the Senate
bill - or increase compliance, which is ultimately an expenditure
reducer.
There was some talk about bringing the fed employee insurance plans
into sync with private plans. Apparently the fed plans cut off
college attending dependents from coverage at age 23, where most
private plans go to age 25.
Anyway, it's a huge undertaking, and not yet thoroughly defined since
reconciliation and vote counting between House and Senate hasn't
happened. And this is all from memory, so I might be off on some
things.
About the only thing I've got a handle on is that it looks like
everybody will have to be insured or suffer a penalty, and gov
subsidies will flow. Even that is really just my guess.
One thing there is no guessing about: It's gonna cost.
But no surprise there.
Omelet = (eggs + broken)
Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know.
The answer might save me some time.

--Vic

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote:

When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers,
teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain
something of any complexity to the public.

They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses.
But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every
face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care.
And an empty head.


Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea
I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain.

Damn, already!? I just mentioned it!
But it makes sense only if it doesn't drive Medicare further in the
red.

--Vic

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

But no surprise there.
Omelet = (eggs + broken)
Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know.
The answer might save me some time.

In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :)

Yes - I read the whole thing.

The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not
in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons.

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class
and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue
either.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:07:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not
in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons.

Just curious, what do you think about the proposed co-ops? It's my
understanding that some form of health insurance, as reform is now
proposed, will be mandatory. Without some form of competition to the
health insurance companies, mandatory seems very scary to me. The public
option would have provided that competition, but I think co-ops,
depending on how they are set up, could also work.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me

Why is that?


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:07:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

But no surprise there.
Omelet = (eggs + broken)
Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know.
The answer might save me some time.

In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :)

Let's just say that a business writing course erased most of my Henry
James inclinations. Being a lit major, I thought it would be a waste
of time. Surprise!

Yes - I read the whole thing.

The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not
in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons.

If you start with the premise that the end goal is that everybody will
get personally "affordable" quality health care, there are many routes
to it. There can be variation in some of the perks, such as a private
room, etc, if you pay for that. I believe Germany and Japan - perhaps
others - have that.
But if you don't agree with that premise, there's no sense even
talking about it.
The health care providers and insurance companies are not gov staffed.
Since this debate started there has been plenty of evidence that
Europe and Japan provide equal or better health care than the U.S.
at less cost.
When you say "government run health care" it raises red flags for me
already.
Nobody is talking about that, and in fact the health care industry is
private and capitalistic, except for the military, prisons, and some
state/county hospitals. That's my understanding, anyway.
Even the "exalted" Medicare sees little interference by the gov except
for billing issues.
So the first step is to clear that up.
BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my
perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy.
THAT was gov health care.

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class
and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue
either.

I would like to hear your views.

--Vic

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:14:37 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:07:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not
in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons.

Just curious, what do you think about the proposed co-ops? It's my
understanding that some form of health insurance, as reform is now
proposed, will be mandatory. Without some form of competition to the
health insurance companies, mandatory seems very scary to me. The public
option would have provided that competition, but I think co-ops,
depending on how they are set up, could also work.

On the face of it, it's a sound idea - actually, a little like an HMO
in concept which seem to work well.

But you pointed out the problem yourself - depending on how they are
set up.

The simple truth is this - a public option would not be more efficient
or cost effective than private plans. You just have to look around at
various government run health care systems to see how inefficient they
are - the Indian Health Service is one good example. The VA is
another, although the VA has cleaned up it's act over the past few
years quite a bit and the general care levels are becoming much
better. I'm going into the VA system myself shortly - I looked at it
hard and was satisfied that my situation will be handled well.

So will a co-op work? It does in some states and they seem to be very
effective and efficient in patient care. The few that I know about
are small, self-contained (all-in-one service centers from testing to
care) and being non-profit, the costs are containable and in general,
less than standard health plans.

I was in a similar system quite a few years ago - it was a non-profit
health care system run by Hanneman Hospital in Worcester. To tell the
truth, it was high quality care, the specialists were top rank and in
general, the feeling was of a small doctors office where people knew
who you were - a very nice. Everything was contained within one
facility - you see the doctor, get an x-ray (or CAT/PET/MRI) on the
spot readings, go back and see the NP or PA and if they needed to get
the doc, they got the doc. It was good.

So in my experience, the co-op seems like a good idea. Run by the
government though? No - I can't see that. The very nature of
government does not allow for efficiency, cost containment and
effective.