This proposed legislation would require the President to approve or disapprove each set of the IMAC's recommendations as a package. If the President accepts the IMAC's recommendations, Congress would then have 30 days to intervene with a joint resolution before the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to implement them. If either the President disapproves the recommendations of the IMAC or Congress passes such a joint resolution, the recommendations would be null and void, and current law would remain in effect. The review process would permit intervention if the IMAC's reforms are not in keeping with the goals of Congress or the President, while retaining autonomy for implementing annual payment updates and other Medicare reforms for the IMAC.
]]>
Saternius, from Fashion Trends
]]>How does that make any sense at all?
What else should you have to pay because I had challenges?
My mortgage?
My utilities?
How about my cable bill?
Maybe you should buy me a new car. If you didn't pay for it (via your taxes), the IRS would put you in jail.
Why is any of this OK with ANYBODY?
P
The only "reform" he's interested in is opening up access to every American.
If he were truly interested in "reform" and "cost reduction", we'd actually be debating the options that would achieve such things. But we are not, are we?
Obama should just be honest and admit he wants access and cares little about how much it costs or who will pay.
Well, no, actually. He wasn't there. And while he may have felt helpless for some odd reason, he was a graduate of Harvard Law School, with limitless earnings potential, and could surely have helped out Mom with her medical expenses had he been so inclined. He was apparently not so inclined, but she received medical treatment nonetheless. Doubtless at the expense of the taxpayers of Hawaii.
]]>Health care is a similar situation - everyone is better off if basic health care services are widely shared and available. If 20% of the population of your local town has no recourse to health care that leads to high bankrupcy rates, likely to rebound on the local economy. It leads to high illness and absenteeism, which hurts local employers. It leads to people avoiding medical treatment until they require more expensive care for chronic treatments, that not only make them sicker but more likely to draw on medicaid and to be unable to support themselves, draining the public purse.
It's a good idea for you to pay a little bit extra to guarantee my medical care (and for me to pay a little bit extra to guarantee your medical care) because your mother's untreated preventable death from cancer isn't just a family tragedy, it's a bad societal bargain. Let's say your mother dies before you are grown: that puts an added burden on your family with either a major loss of income or a loss of needed child care. It makes the family more likely to need public assistance, it makes the children less likely to complete school and more likely to commit crimes.
Preventing this is a public service, just like delivering clean streets or stopping crime or installing traffic lights. Universal health care may not be a "right" but it IS good public policy. Americans pay much more for health services than any other country in the world (by a bewildering margin) but do not get better health outcomes for it according to any metric - e.g. life expectancy, chronic illnesses, infant mortality etc. That's not a good system.
And that's not to even consider the moral dimension - that letting your mom suffer and die without even basic medical care is just flat out wrong.
]]>Access to healthcare isn't the issue. Individual cases aside, if it were, the Canadians wouldn't come to the US as a matter of routine to receive care that they literally can't get in their socialized system. We accomodate all in our system without problems.
Costs of care can be high, no doubt of that. Enact tort reform and the costs will drop immediately, though.
Next change the way health care insurance is sold. Right now, we have few choices. I have to pay for coverage that includes obgyn and sickle cell anemia even though I am immune to such things.
What I want is something like auto insurance. Let me take care of the simple stuff like physicals and let the insurance take care of the surgeries. Something like that. If the bill is under the deductible, its mine. If not, it is the insurance company's.
It is my understanding that the way healthcare insurance is sold makes it expensive, but I have no examples so can't address that argument further. That is an idea that needs development.
The idea that the government can provide healthcare, or even workable healthcare insurance is just not within it's demonstrated capabilities.
The national indian health system has been in existence since 1870 and runs out of money by June of each year. Care is so substandard at any time that people die needlessly all year long.
Medicare serves only a niche of the US population, yet does so extremely poorly.
The Veteran's Administration is an embarassment to us all.
Even if a national healthcare system made some sense, doesn't it make sense for a smaller model be used to test the system first rather than compromising the entire GDP to insure the 4% of the legal population that is truly unable to pay?
Just excluding illegals would go along way toward bringing down the cost of running public hospitals.
The real objective of this healthcare proposal is to be one more step in moving the Chicago model of government to Washington.
Each step creates another office and another bureaucracy and adds a special interest group that lodges itself into our government and makes itself hard to change or dislodge. In Chicago, it starts with a garbage can. You can't get one without contacting your alderman and you can't use a personal one or it won't get picked up. You start out life beholding to the local government.
That is where this is going, step by step. To use PBO's words, if you are fighting these individual battles, you are allowing yourself to be distracted while the real fight goes on around you to take over it all.
Welcome to New Chicago!
]]>This health care debate is maddening. Our political leaders are irresponsible to add on this much debt - even if it's supposed to end up lowering costs years down the road. Most people I know don't understand how you can lower costs by raising them. Why should health care reform be so expensive if it's supposed to lower costs?? It doesn't make sense!!
We are screwed. And, I believe that Democrats are going to pay in the 2010 election because the public is apprehensive. I think people would prefer to have Republicans in the majority in Congress to tame Obama's ambitious agenda, even if people agree with some of his goals.
Health care is not the same as public education. Yes, it is immoral and not representative of a civilized society to just let people die in the street. But caring for one's health is a very personal matter. People make health choices every day in what they eat, whether they exercise, whether they smoke or drink excessively. I cannot control what other people do. I can barely control what I do!!
And, why are people in the House bill prohibited from purchasing additional private insurance on their own???
There has not been enough education of the public why all of this is necessary. The same goes for cap and trade. It's like the government is forcing us to take medicine that we don't think is necessary or it's the wrong medicine for the condition we have.
]]>Also, as far as the outcomes, it strikes me as odd to make the argument on one hand that we don't cover everyone in the US, then on the other hand to argue that statistics measured across the whole population (like life expectancy, etc.) are a measure of a system that you just argued doesn't cover everyone.
]]>1.We don't need to. Contrary to what scare merchants like Joe would have you believe, we LIKE our medical system and would never trade it for yours. Any Canadian can give you examples of relatives or friends who were treated promptly and extensively, and at no cost. Me: a 38-year-old cousin who got state-of-the-art treatment for her breast cancer, my mother who had a very successful second hip replacement, my sister who had eye surgery etc etc.
2. Canadians simply aren't interested in going to the U.S. to pay ramped-up U.S. prices for over-the-counter medical treatment. (And why would we anyway, when it's free here?) We are so shocked by the high cost of U.S. medical care that Canadians traveling to the U.S. on business or for vacations are considered kind of irreponsible if they don't buy medical insurance to cover themselves if they happen to have an accident or sudden illness while in the U.S.
Americans: Don't consider Joe's claptrap about Canadians running to the U.S. for medical treatment, as you decide how to reform your system to make it cheaper and available to more Americans. Is the Canadian system perfect? No, no system is. But try finding a Canadian who wants to trade your system for ours.
I'm cheering on all your efforts for medical reform.
Firstly, it's misleading to talk about "a universal health care plan modeled on European programs", because Europe includes many different models for delivering universal health care. The UK (where I live as a US expat) has a National Health Service, which operates as a single payer system. France has a public insurance models. Scandanvian countries have another model. What they have in common is that they all spend MUCH less than we do.
Secondly, you may be shocked to learn that the US already spends more per capita on PUBLIC health care alone than even the UK, although the UK covers its entire population under a public plan and we do not. Also, there are studies that have compared national health outcomes but looked only at those who have private insurance. They still found health outcomes better or the same in other countries than in the US. There simply is little to no evidence that on the whole the US is getting a better standard of medicine for its higher costs. Sadly.
However, althouth my argument on health outcomes still stands if you only compare those with insurance, I'm not willing (as you suggest) to exclude the uninsured from consideration as part of the system. That there are a large number of people without medical cover is a feature of the system, and ought to be considered when our system is compared to others. Those 42 million people count.
]]>That is an interesting point about including the uninsured in the statistics as a byproduct of the system. I would say it's a little disingenuous to throw out 42 million, as it looks either biased or ignorant. The 42 million "uninsured" doesn't even attempt to compensate for those that are in college, unwilling to look for insurance, etc. Nonetheless, good argument.
If you notice my argument below (and also the reason I generalize European health care), I am still looking for how the world will get innovation if we adopt any of the European models. At this point, the US essentially subsidizes the innovation and research of the rest of the world. Who will do it if we adopt a one payer system?
]]>Hmmmm. Now what's the problem again?
]]>It's about time. We spend too much money keeping people alive for a few extra weeks.
Brian
]]>When President Obama speaks about healthcare, he is not simply talking about access; nor is he speaking simply about insurance - he is referring to the US Budget.
For years the leaders in our country have known that the US budget is dire straights due to the overwhelming costs of our entitlement programs and the Defense Department Budget. Added to the entitlement problem was the COMPLETELY unfunded Medicare D program (enacted by President GW Bush). That combined with the deficit spending for all wars (and both parties) has added to our balance sheet Trillons of dollars.
While we as a nation pay our debts and forgive others, the current rate of spending for defense and entitlements, when adjusted for inflation will cause the country to begin going bankrupt in around 2050. Any debt we add now is being repaid as old and new debt - at the current rate of interest. As an example, think about repaying a home loan at an inflationary rates as opposed to a locked loan from 1960. Your interest rate may not have changed, but the cost of repaying the old rate is less than the new new rate.
All of this is to say that while President Obama has added debt to the balance sheet (and I even as a social liberal think a lot of it is unnecessary), he is attempting to correct decade old funding problems (World Wars 1 & 2, Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, his own budget additions and the ever infamous 'Star Wars' defense system). And he is attempting to correct all these mistakes in his first term as opposed to slinking away leaving massive debt on the theory that "one day" it will all be repaid.
Like him or hate him, I think we should at least respect the effort in the aforementioned context and justifyably hold him accountable if the effort fails.
All else (specifically Zandelar) is to the left of insanity.
]]>When President Obama speaks about healthcare, he is not simply talking about access; nor is he speaking simply about insurance - he is referring to the US Budget.
For years the leaders in our country have known that the US budget is dire straights due to the overwhelming costs of our entitlement programs and the Defense Department Budget. Added to the entitlement problem was the COMPLETELY unfunded Medicare D program (enacted by President GW Bush). That combined with the deficit spending for all wars (and both parties) has added to our balance sheet Trillons of dollars.
While we as a nation pay our debts and forgive others, the current rate of spending for defense and entitlements, when adjusted for inflation will cause the country to begin going bankrupt in around 2050. Any debt we add now is being repaid as old and new debt - at the current rate of interest. As an example, think about repaying a home loan at an inflationary rates as opposed to a locked loan from 1960. Your interest rate may not have changed, but the cost of repaying the old rate is less than the new new rate.
All of this is to say that while President Obama has added debt to the balance sheet (and I even as a social liberal think a lot of it is unnecessary), he is attempting to correct decade old funding problems (World Wars 1 & 2, Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, his own budget additions and the ever infamous 'Star Wars' defense system). And he is attempting to correct all these mistakes in his first term as opposed to slinking away leaving massive debt on the theory that "one day" it will all be repaid.
Like him or hate him, I think we should at least respect the effort in the aforementioned context and justifyably hold him accountable if the effort fails.
All else (specifically Zandelar) is to the left of insanity.
]]>The other idea that people will suddenly start having to shoulder costs they are not currently is also ludicrous. Nonprofit hospitals are required by law to reat all comers, regardless of ability to pay-they have charity funds to cover those costs, which are covered by passing on costs to those who CAN pay. Insurance companies pass those costs along in the form of ever higher premiums and co-pays. Drug companies also have smaller indigent programs that are paid for by those with the means to purchase their product. It goes on and on.
No matter how you slice it, America cannot grow and prosper while continuing to spend 1 out of every 6 dollars on healthcare. The marketplace will not police itself. It has to come from the federal level, and it has to provide basic covergae to the vast majority of Americans, whether it is in the form of this particular plan or not.
]]>I'm waiting.
]]>So you would rather have the case manager with the BS in therapeutic rec do it? Because that is who is managing your case file right now.
]]>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html
]]>"last year the Gallup organization did ask Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more, per person, on health care, the figure was only 56 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=5
Why does it cost thousands of dollars to insulate your house and add new windows if it supposed to lower your heating bills?
]]>You can stop waiting now.
]]>Let forget the misspellings and grammatical errors of your post..
And try to concentrate on what is you're attempting to say. If you disagree with the policies or the polemics debated here, provide a cogent argument for discussion or take that mess to the National Review website.
]]>But what happened since? Our healthcare has became more expensive, and the quality has gone down the hill. The 2006 U.S. healthcare statistics showed that the U.S. was barely in 27th out of 192 countries in life expectancy, and 39th in infant mortality (a newborn baby is 3 times more likely to die in the United States than those born in countries with the lowest infant mortality) and 41st in terms of overall health. Countries with rankings similar to the United States include Lybia, Syria, Thailand, Brunei, Solvenia and Cyprus. The United States is significantly behind the healthiest countries, which include Canada, Australia, Germany, Israel, Japan, France and Iceland.
Recent U.S. studies of our healthcare system reveal shocking results: In 1999 the Institute of Medicine found that every year 98,000 Americans die in hospitals due to preventable errors. Last year a RAND Corporation study showed that American children only receive the correct treatment 47% of the time. According to a 2004 study American adults receive the correct treatment 55% of the time.
49 million Americans have no health insurance coverage. Millions more are drastically under-insured. In recent years, medical bills are the number one reason Americans declare personal bankruptcy.
All of which should make Americans very angry. We have given our healthcare system the best tools, the best people, and in essence a blank check. And, what do we get? Mediocre (at best) results. If the purpose of a healthcare system is to produce health, we clearly do not have the best. And we can surely do better. The President’s healthcare reform initiative is designed to do just that. Science books for kids
]]>In order to end this mess and crisys i believe we should have a HMO reform. Create a non for profit HMO that would have the benefit of the people in mind! Also not have HMO and Crongess decide how to rip-off doctors and how to close hospitals because they are not profitable anymore. Furthermore, instead of spending trillions in a health care reform for ALL, why not cut down the cost and do a reform for the uninsured. While having people choose what kind of coverage they are able to afford. In my opinion i believe 99% of the 42 Million of uninsured people, are uninsured because they can't afford to have insurance. Therefore, share cost while maximizing coverage by not having HMOs make astronomical earnings. Just for the sake of my argument, research indicates in 2007 California's HMOs profit went up 46%, some companies even racked in 74.2 Billion dollars in one year, and all this in a state that is BANKRUPT.
]]>Many politicians are egomaniacs just look at Nixon and Clinton! Samuel Vaknin, Ph.D. 350-050 exam, and a known expert on pathology and narcissism writes about many leaders who've dominated the world stage including Mao and Stalin:
"They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers 642-545 exam, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late."
The personalized emblems, the presumptuous near-replicas of presidential seals that Obama and his team created before he even won the office, the cultish iconography, the desire to silence any kind of dissent among his detractors 646-653 exam, all of these things point to a man who seems to be obsessively driven by his own self-interest.
With each policy push and passing day that Wall Street suffers, we are learning that with Obama, reality and fantasy are intertwined. Let's hope the country wakes up in time, before his quest for greatness sacrifices the nation's best interests SY0-201 exam.
]]>