|
|
President Obama's promised healthcare reform is now in the house. Nothing is definite yet, the detail to be hammered out. What components would you like to see included in the legislation? Are you in favor of a single payer system? Why or why not?
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(3706 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 12:42 AM
|
Both.
The senate bill actually said it was giving everyone the same federal workers insurance system. The house bill just did it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(3705 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 12:37 AM
|
JaredP,
Senate or House Bill?
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(3704 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 21, 2009 12:20 AM
|
Rujoking,
I said:
>> 1. Expand Medicaid
>> 2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
>> 3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
>> 4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance system
>> used by congress.
>>
>> Pay attention.
Aka the federal workers insurance. Aka the public exchange. The exchange IS the same insurance program congress uses. The public option is a BARE BONES plan which is only there to provide a benchmark.
Pay attention.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(3703 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 11:12 PM
|
prettwitt,
The "bill" that remains to be seen is likely to be a whopper of conservative pork (although its likely to be portrayed as just the opposite). If you have the opportunity, I urge you to resist it, although I have full faith that the conservatives (i.e.; the neo-Nazi party of America) will have beat you to the punch in full force beforehand. They're dependable that way.
Cheers!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(3702 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 10:53 PM
|
> prettywitty,
>
> Again, I LOVE that name!
Well thanks! You've got a stellar one.
> Sorry, the only concern I would have if I were
> Obama, is that my name would be forever attached to a
> SIGNATURE bill that was not of my liking.
Is this in response to my post about the use of "Obamacare?" It's so very teabaggeresque.
>
> This "calculus" is not even hard, even for a 7th
> grade algebra student like me. Minimal healthcare
> (the word "minimal" MIGHT be the rub) has to be ROCK
> SOLID wrapped up and delivered prior to the midterms.
> About THAT, there can NOT be any equivocation.
I think there will be a bill before that, though what kind of bill remains to be seen.
>
> Absent that, WOW!; life is fun these days!
>
> DaN
Always, DaN!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(3701 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 9:52 PM
|
prettywitty,
Again, I LOVE that name!
Sorry, the only concern I would have if I were Obama, is that my name would be forever attached to a SIGNATURE bill that was not of my liking.
This "calculus" is not even hard, even for a 7th grade algebra student like me. Minimal healthcare (the word "minimal" MIGHT be the rub) has to be ROCK SOLID wrapped up and delivered prior to the midterms. About THAT, there can NOT be any equivocation.
Absent that, WOW!; life is fun these days!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,969
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(3700 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 7:44 PM
|
> > > I'm also waiting for some opinions on whether
> > people believe that Mrs. Obama will now forego
> > mammograms until her 50th birthday. Probably
> around
> > the same time as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi
> agree to
> > sign themselves up for the same government
> health
> > insurance plan that they want to force on
> millions of
> > Americans.
> >
> > The original insurance plans for both the house
> and
> > senate could be boiled down to four points:
> >
> > 1. Expand Medicaid
> > 2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
> > 3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
> > 4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance
> system
> > used by congress.
> >
> > Pay attention.
> >
>
> This is from the web site of Congressman John Fleming
> from Louisiana who is sponsoring a bill proposing the
> automatic enrollment of all members of Congress into
> the vaunted public option:
>
> House Resolution 615
>
> ...I have offered a resolution that will offer
> members of Congress an opportunity to put their money
> where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who
> vote for legislation creating a government-run health
> care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in
> the same public plan.
>
> [b]Under the current draft of the Democrat
> healthcare legislation, members of Congress are
> curiously exempt from the government-run health care
> option, keeping their existing health plans and
> services on Capitol Hill. If Members of
> Congress believe so strongly that government-run
> health care is the best solution for hard working
> American families, I think it only fitting that
> Americans see them lead the way. Public servants
> should always be accountable and responsible for what
> they are advocating.
>
> Perhaps it was your attention that lapsed.
>
Or Fleming's. All members of Congress already can be covered by public health insurance, and most of them already are. The fact that he makes a proposal of something doesn't mean it doesn't already exist.
>
> > Nor do I see why ANYBODY should obey a
> guideline
> > almost universally rejected by the medical
> community.
>
I don't think it's almost universally rejected. I was listening to some doctors today who agree with the new guidelines, that many women don't need the annual testing, that the tests generate many false positives which do lots of harm (in the way of requiring additional tests, including invasive ones like biopsies) and really do no good whatever... but they point out that in the end, it's only a guideline.
The actual decision is between a specific doctor and specific patient, or should be, and should be based upon the patient's personal and family history, not some arbitrary guidelines that were thought up by people who never saw this specific patient.
> They shouldn't, but do you honestly think Obamacare
> will pay for a procedure that is not recommended by a
> government-sponsored panel of "experts?"
The procedure will still be covered. It's a matter of the frequency that it will be paid for for patients who have no history the illness. Medicare already limits that. There are people who developed a cancer from nothing to lethality in under 6 months. That isn't particularly rare. Nobody is saying that these tests should be given every 6 months.
> A panel, BTW, that didn't include any oncologists.
This, I didn't know. There should have been one. But then, for this question, they aren't talking about what should be done in treating patients with cancer. This is about treating all women, but especially those who don't have cancer.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(3699 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 10:20 AM
|
> So if
> Obamacare becomes the law of the land
Anyone who uses the fictional term "Obamacare" should be either ridiculed or ignored...but certainly not taken seriously.
|
|
|
Posts:
362
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(3698 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 10:10 AM
|
> > I'm also waiting for some opinions on whether
> people believe that Mrs. Obama will now forego
> mammograms until her 50th birthday. Probably around
> the same time as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi agree to
> sign themselves up for the same government health
> insurance plan that they want to force on millions of
> Americans.
>
> The original insurance plans for both the house and
> senate could be boiled down to four points:
>
> 1. Expand Medicaid
> 2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
> 3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
> 4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance system
> used by congress.
>
> Pay attention.
>
This is from the web site of Congressman John Fleming from Louisiana who is sponsoring a bill proposing the automatic enrollment of all members of Congress into the vaunted public option:
House Resolution 615
...I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
[b]Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating.
Perhaps it was your attention that lapsed.
> Nor do I see why ANYBODY should obey a guideline
> almost universally rejected by the medical community.
They shouldn't, but do you honestly think Obamacare will pay for a procedure that is not recommended by a government-sponsored panel of "experts?" A panel, BTW, that didn't include any oncologists. So if Obamacare becomes the law of the land, those women who can't afford to pay for the procedure will be shit out of luck (in other words, the people who are supposed to be most protected by Obamacare will be outside looking in.) Don't worry, Mrs. Obama will still be able to pay for it.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(3697 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 9:22 AM
|
> I'm also waiting for some opinions on whether people believe that Mrs. Obama will now forego mammograms until her 50th birthday. Probably around the same time as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi agree to sign themselves up for the same government health insurance plan that they want to force on millions of Americans.
The original insurance plans for both the house and senate could be boiled down to four points:
1. Expand Medicaid
2. Subsidize the poor and small business plans
3. Offer a bare-bones Medicare for all plan
4. Offer everyone the exact same insurance system used by congress.
Pay attention.
Nor do I see why ANYBODY should obey a guideline almost universally rejected by the medical community.
|
|
|
Posts:
362
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(3696 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 8:28 AM
|
> > I hope you don't get on of those harmless
> "cancers"
> > Talk to the people who has or fighting cancer
> see if
> > they would say I did not need it removed I
> wanted to
> > see how it would play out.
> >
> > There is no such a thing as "aren't the really
> bad
> > ones"
> > the cancer is called cancer for a reason it
> spreads
> > out with a speed of light.
>
> Actually, there are some cancers that move very
> slowly. My uncle had a form of leukemia from when he
> was in his 20's. That didn't do much to him. But by
> the time he died at 91, he had 3 other cancers. And
> 2 of those were also slow. I also know people whose
> cancers went from being undetectable with
> conventional tests, to lethal in less than 6 months.
>
>
> I'm saying, there appears to still be a great deal we
> don't know, but after all the decades of research, I
> think we should know. My cynical side wonders if
> perhaps the doctors really do know, but are
> pretending not to, so they can perform excision
> services and get paid?
Slow-moving does not equal non-dangerous. And if you don't do anything to detect a slow-moving cancer before it reached an advanced stage or metastacizes then it's not really all that harmless. I was kind of hoping that there might be some posters on here who might know a woman who had a mammogram in her 40s that detected cancer, or perhaps might be cancer survivors themselves.
I'm also waiting for some opinions on whether people believe that Mrs. Obama will now forego mammograms until her 50th birthday. Probably around the same time as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi agree to sign themselves up for the same government health insurance plan that they want to force on millions of Americans.
|
|
|
Posts:
362
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(3695 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 8:19 AM
|
> Gz- Seriously, where do you think the "excess" will
> come from. Do you think there is $500B worth of fraud
> in the system? Tell Nancy Pelosi to give a link.Come
> on you come across as an intelligent person, so how
> can you think they can take out $500B without cutting
> services. She states that they will tax the "rich" to
> help cover the cost. Well here comes another one of
> my guarantees, the middle class will pay the majority
> of the cost. They say just over $1trillion, which
> means at least $2trillion. In a perfect world I'd
> love to see a public option, especially for the
> working poor, but the people who run this congress
> will fuck it up as usual.
I've heard our Lord and Saviour Obama state that we need to pass healthcare reform so we can fix the $500 billion in fraud. Why? If you know it exists why do you need new nationalized healthcare to clean up the existing federal system? Does anyone believe that one is dependent on the other? Does anyone believe passage of nationalized healthcare will actually lead to reduction in fraud? Are there really people that gullible in this country?
|
|
|
Posts:
120
Registered:
10/8/08
|
|
(3694 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 20, 2009 12:15 AM
|
|
Gz- Seriously, where do you think the "excess" will come from. Do you think there is $500B worth of fraud in the system? Tell Nancy Pelosi to give a link.Come on you come across as an intelligent person, so how can you think they can take out $500B without cutting services. She states that they will tax the "rich" to help cover the cost. Well here comes another one of my guarantees, the middle class will pay the majority of the cost. They say just over $1trillion, which means at least $2trillion. In a perfect world I'd love to see a public option, especially for the working poor, but the people who run this congress will fuck it up as usual.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,969
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(3693 of 3706)
Re: Healthcare in the house
Nov 19, 2009 11:42 PM
|
> I hope you don't get on of those harmless "cancers"
> Talk to the people who has or fighting cancer see if
> they would say I did not need it removed I wanted to
> see how it would play out.
>
> There is no such a thing as "aren't the really bad
> ones"
> the cancer is called cancer for a reason it spreads
> out with a speed of light.
Actually, there are some cancers that move very slowly. My uncle had a form of leukemia from when he was in his 20's. That didn't do much to him. But by the time he died at 91, he had 3 other cancers. And 2 of those were also slow. I also know people whose cancers went from being undetectable with conventional tests, to lethal in less than 6 months.
I'm saying, there appears to still be a great deal we don't know, but after all the decades of research, I think we should know. My cynical side wonders if perhaps the doctors really do know, but are pretending not to, so they can perform excision services and get paid?
|
|
|
Posts:
13,016
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
|
|
|
