Scott Brown

[Guest072311]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

....Regardless, IMHO, the only way you are going to get any kind of fresh ideas in either house is to term-limit the House and Senate to a service of no longer than 12 consecutive years in either body (six terms in the House; two terms in the Senate). I would go even further in term limiting the House to three terms (six years) to match the original intent of the framers.

Well, could a petition get the ball started? If left up to politicians, I doubt it will happen. What other options? A civil suit, Civil Liberties - ACLU? That would be a gas house go!!! But it makes sense to me....

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Well guys all of the above is going to get worse with the supreme court decision today declaring limits on corperate donations to elected officials as unconsitutional. Now we truly will have the best government money can buy.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ can show who gets what, atleast the part they have to release. Who knows about under the table...

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by ss4699

Well, could a petition get the ball started? If left up to politicians, I doubt it will happen. What other options? A civil suit, Civil Liberties - ACLU? That would be a gas house go!!! But it makes sense to me....

Unfortunately, this would require a Constitutional Amendment. There are two ways that amendments can be proposed - one, through a resolution submitted by either house of Congress that must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house; two, through the calling of a Constituional Convention and amendments submitted by the members of the convention (there are pitfalls to a convention in that it would not be limited to one amendment). Then, the amendments would be submitted to the legislatures of the states and must be ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures within seven years of the amendment's submission.

The best way would be to elect representatives to each house that support term limits and have an amendment submitted by one of those representatives.

[Gryphon]

Originally Posted by MsElena

Gryphon,

I don't want it to be free, just reasonable. I've spent over 2 grand on medicine in the last 3 months and I have insurance. Hell, the co-pay on migraine meds is $75. Without insurance, that medicine costs around $230 for 10 pills.

Elena, I'm not talking about medication costs; I'm completely in your corner there. Prescriptions are far more expensive in the U.S. than in other countries because we subsidize the deals their governments negotiate with drug companies. And the cost of prescription drugs isn't addressed in any meaningful way in either bill--although if it were, a lot of the public resistance to them would probably evaporate.

I'm talking about insisting that an 87 year old with advanced dementia be put on dialysis, or that a 90 year old with heart failure and severe emphysema be given chemotherapy for lung cancer and spend his last months in the hospital. Does everyone who falls and bumps their head need a CT scan? No, the vast majority do not. But they'll get one if they go to an Emergency Room because the ER doc covers his ass to keep from being sued. These are the things that drive up health care costs and insurance premiums. To pay for the $100,000 two week terminal hospitalization in the Intensive Care Unit for that 90 year old cancer patient, ten families would have to pay $10,000 for health insurance that year and use no services at all. There's no way for the overall system to break even with that kind of discrepancy, which happens on a daily basis. I know the 90 year old is under Medicare; that's why Medicare is projected to go bankrupt in 2017.

Sorry for the rant; this topic strikes a nerve for me.

And drugs from Canada or Mexico are reasonable options for most things, but for some drugs like seizure medications, drugs to control heart rhythm, hormone replacements, and some blood pressure medicines small variations in formulation can make huge differences in effectiveness.

[john_galt]

A couple of things; universal healthcare works in other countries... Not the ones that I visited (most of Europe, Canada, the Middle East, and the Carribbean). The service is poor, wait times are lengthy, and you can not always get the medicine that is available in the U.S. In England and Canada healthcare is rationed and can be denied if you have not given up smoking or lost weight to their satisfaction.
The democrats only want to give us all healthcare... First, the Senate bill and the House bill will fail to cover about 13 million Americans and that doesn't count the 10-12 million illegals in this country. So it is not universal. Think about it, if the democrats truly wanted universal healthcare don't you think that democrats would have gone to the GOP and asked what do you want and what will you vote for? Minority leader McConnell has a list of five things that the GOP will vote for and the CBO has scored these five things and they will save billions of dollars. Why don't the democrats want healthcare for everyone then.
1. Tort reform (trial lawyers hate this one) will save an estimated 120-150 billion dollars
2. Portable health insurance. Loose your job keep your insurance.
3. Health saving accounts. $2000 a year for checkups or catastrophe healthcare insurance. After 3 years whatever you save is yours.
4. Competition between insurance companies like your car insurance. Now you can only choose among the insurance companies that have access to your state.

This is obviously a power grab and power grab alone or else the GOP would be invited in to close a deal. Even many conservatives like Scott Brown are not opposed to healthcare insurance reform, but they are opposed to THIS bill.

[ampad]

I was in Amsterdam last month and talked to a whole range of people about the topic of health care. I was very interested in hearing directly from the people that actually live with socialized medicine, as opposed to just hearing from the pundits on each side who only tell the facts that support their argument.

The overwhelming majority of the Dutch folks I talked to *love* their health care system. I only heard a few people mention the wait times, and no one had a problem with the actual service. I didn't think to ask about drug availability.

Many of the dutch folks I talked to had a hard time understanding why America wouldn't want such a system. I tried explaining some of the reasons behind it. Most got the idea of free market being a concern, though they claimed that wasn't an issue. Many took offense when I said America had the best health care providers in the world. For the most part they just don't understand why "the most powerful nation in the world" can't provide health care for its citizens.

Now from what I understand the proposed system here and the Dutch system are basically apples and oranges, even though both would be considered socialized medicine. Their system is entirely based on private insurance but is considered universal since everyone is required to have insurance. The government has regulations that keep the cost down and keep the insurance companies from only insuring low-risk patients. Who knows if that system would work here.

Anyways, this post isn't meant to be an endorsement of either side of the topic. Just thought I'd share my personal experience with the fine Dutch folks. It was pretty cool talking to real people with real experience rather than being told what to think by people with agendas.

[Starry69]

The overwhelming majority of the Dutch folks I talked to *love* their health care system.

That's been my experience too.

The Candaians, the English, the French all seem to be happy with their health care.

It's always Americans who talk about how bad their socialized health care is.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by john_galt

1. Tort reform (trial lawyers hate this one) will save an estimated 120-150 billion dollars
2. Portable health insurance. Loose your job keep your insurance.
3. Health saving accounts. $2000 a year for checkups or catastrophe healthcare insurance. After 3 years whatever you save is yours.
4. Competition between insurance companies like your car insurance. Now you can only choose among the insurance companies that have access to your state.

JG:

1) As long as trial lawyers are a major contributor to campaigns (and as long as a majority of members of both houses are lawyers), tort reform will never happen. This has been an issue for the GOP on health coverage reform as far back as the Reagan administration (which is as far back as I have been active politically).
2) There is portable health insurance available, it's called COBRA and it is 3 times as expensive as your premium under your employer's group policy because you lose the employer contribution to the premium and you lose the pricing of the premium based on the spread of the risk among the members of the group and the experience (number of claims) of the group. To make the insurance truly portable (same coverage and premium as was under your employer's plan) would be a nice-to-have and could be done if the experience and risk could be negotiated and determined by job type rather than by employer.
3) HSA accounts already exist. IRS rules allow you to contribute up to approximately $6000 annually to an HSA which would not be lost at years' end. This, combined with a qualified high-deductible insurance plan would allow for greater influence on the marketplace because it would put the burden on "finding the best deal" for routine medical expenses on the consumer. The QHD plan would limit the liability of the policyholder to an annual maximum ($2500 for individuals, $5000 for families, for example - paid for out of the HSA tax-free) before the insurance kicks in and pays for everything above the deductible - which would cover catastrophic illnesses and injury. A nice feature of the QHD is that routine procedures and screenings (physicals, mammograms and pap smears, colonoscopy, well child care and blood work) would be covered 100% without impacting the deductible. The feature of a certain number of years for funds to be held in the account and then it could be withdrawn for any expense without penalty or tax would be an added incentive (although I had heard the time period would be 10 years, not 3).
4) Selling insurance across state lines without regard to the insurance commission of the state would allow the free market to encourage competition and, by extension, reduce the price of insurance. This was the only point that I had heard any Democrat state for inclusion in any health coverage reform bill.

Originally Posted by ampad

Many took offense when I said America had the best health care providers in the world. For the most part they just don't understand why "the most powerful nation in the world" can't provide health care for its citizens.

America does have the best health care and health care providers in the world. The problem is not health CARE - it is health COVERAGE.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by Starry69

The Candaians, the English, the French all seem to be happy with their health care.

Then why is it when Canadians, English, French need to have a medical procedure or medical care (cancer treatment, for example) that is denied by their socialized health system, or if they are put on a waiting list for that procedure, come to the USA to have that procedure or care performed? Under the Democrat plan for universal health coverage, no one in the US would have had the option to go outside the system to have a denied procedure performed or avoid a waiting period. You would have been arrested, fined and/or taxed for opting out of the system - sounds a bit draconian to me.

[tomcat2102003]

For what it is worth:

I can tell you from personal experience that the Canadian health care does in fact have issues with long wait times to see the doctor (many times at least 5 or 6 hours, maybe more) and then the time with the doctor is only a few minutes. I have talked to many Canadians that have experienced this. They have come to accept it as the norm. Those that don't want to wait, and have the money, can go to private physicians and not have the wait.

I can also say the HSA process in the US works very well. I use it myself and it works great. What I actually give to the insurance company for coverage is less than half the normal rate and what I contribute to the HSA stays with me. I am getting older and some day will probably need the $$ in the HSA to cover a major bill. It is nice to know it is there to use some day.

I have the advantage of having a healthy family so no pre-existing conditions to worry about. The people that do have pre-existing conditions can easily pay $1500 to $2000 per month for reasonable health insurance if they have to get it on their own,,, if they can get it. Those people need some help. And if they only make $30k or $40k a year, well they are just out of luck.

[swarmyone]

The overwhelming majority of the Dutch folks I talked to *love* their health care system. I only heard a few people mention the wait times, and no one had a problem with the actual service. I didn't think to ask about drug availability.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans also "LOVE" their health care. The majority of Americans, and Dutch, are healthy. Healthy people don't bitch about healthcare or its costs. Most Americans have health insurance that they are satisfied with.

The real issue is with the quality of care. I have never heard of anybody traveling out of the US for their health care (with the exeption of experimental procedures). Our health care, like our overall quality of life is better than the rest of the world because of capitalism. Competition breeds innovation and quality. Medical schools and hospitals are constantly striving to be better than the other school or hospital down the road. The consumer (patient) ultimately wins. If all our health care providers were run by the government, there would be no incentive to strive for greatness.

Also, it is a total fallacy to say that ANYBODY has died because of a lack of health insurance. You can walk into any hospital or medical center in this country and receive emergency care. You will then be transfered to another facility for follow up care and treatment. Hospitals write off millions of dollars each year due to a patients inability to pay. I agree that some changes need to be made, but the democrat's proposals are a disaster that wouldn't fix the problem and would destroy our economy and life as we know it.

[Guest072311]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

JG:

1) As long as trial lawyers are a major contributor to ...
2) There is portable health insurance available, it's called COBRA and it is 3 times as expensive as your premium under ....
3) HSA accounts already exist. IRS rules allow ....
4) Selling insurance across state lines without regard....

America does have the best health care and health care providers in the world. The problem is not health CARE - it is health COVERAGE.

I would agree with the statements here. On Canada, I have read on this one and it does have problems as mentioned. For the Dutch question, Starry and amp - can you support those statement with data for us?

The structure?
-lawyers become judges who make legal decisions
-lawyers become legislators who pass laws
-lawyers become lobbyists who "pay off" judges, and legislators
.....and the circle continues?
The circle needs to be broken in my opinion.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by swarmyone

Also, it is a total fallacy to say that ANYBODY has died because of a lack of health insurance. You can walk into any hospital or medical center in this country and receive emergency care. You will then be transfered to another facility for follow up care and treatment. Hospitals write off millions of dollars each year due to a patients inability to pay. I agree that some changes need to be made, but the democrat's proposals are a disaster that wouldn't fix the problem and would destroy our economy and life as we know it.

Ditto. Well stated.

[Starry69]

Under the Democrat plan for universal health coverage, no one in the US would have had the option to go outside the system to have a denied procedure performed or avoid a waiting period. You would have been arrested, fined and/or taxed for opting out of the system - sounds a bit draconian to me.

Sounds draconian to me too. I've not heard of that before. I'd be interested in learning more.

For the Dutch question, Starry and amp - can you support those statement with data for us?

LOL...

I've seen very little data supporting any of the claims being made. But to answer your question, no I don't. And I don't know about the Dutch, my experience is with the Canadian system.

I have quite a few family members living in Canada, in Calgary, Vancouver, and smaller towns. All are happy with the health care they receive. They say that if they need something urgently they get care right now. If it's not so urgent they may not get it on demand but they're not unhappy with the wait times.

BTW, I was not really defending the bill the dems put together, it wasn't very good and starting over on a smaller scale may be the best thing.

I'm just stating my opinions on some of the ideas being discussed here.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by Starry69

Sounds draconian to me too. I've not heard of that before. I'd be interested in learning more.

From a CNN story posted the night the Senate bill passed (12/24/2009):

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/...are/index.html

"Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income, whichever is greater. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans."

And a posting from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank) outlining 6 key differences between the House and Senate bills posted on 12/22/2009:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2740.cfm

"4. The Penalties of an Individual Mandate. Both bills also impose a new legal requirement on individuals to either buy federally approved health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

Beginning in 2014, the Senate bill requires individuals to purchase a government-approved plan or pay a penalty. By 2016, the annual penalty would amount to $750. The tax penalty, indexed for inflation, would increase over time.

Beginning in 2013, the House bill requires individuals to pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income for not obtaining federally "acceptable" health care coverage. Those with health insurance that does not meet the federal standards would still pay the tax penalty. Not surprisingly, many on the Right and the Left oppose this mandate.[7] Ironically, both sides seem to agree that congressional action to coerce individuals to buy insurance is bad policy or just plain wrong."

[Gryphon]

Originally Posted by Starry69

I have quite a few family members living in Canada, in Calgary, Vancouver, and smaller towns. All are happy with the health care they receive. They say that if they need something urgently they get care right now. If it's not so urgent they may not get it on demand but they're not unhappy with the wait times.

There is a large segment of the American population that would go absolutely apeshit at the thought of having a wait time for anything, urgent or not. As a society we have become accustomed to instant gratification; anything less is simply not acceptable to some people. The Canadian and European health systems evolved differently, with government playing a large role all the way back to the eighteenth century. They're comfortable with their systems because that's what they know. Many Americans would be...unenthusiastic about the restrictions.