• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Obamacare and the GOP: Watch What Happens!

jpccusa

Happy with this new hobby
So this will be interesting to watch, although I can almost predict the outcome - that walk won't be walked...

A cadre of Democratic House members – all fierce defenders of President Obama’s health care reforms — are asking Republicans who want to repeal the law to forgo their taxpayer-subsidized health insurance out of principle.

The group, led by Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) and three other progressives – responding to a POLITICO report that repeal proponent Rep.-elect Andy Harris (R-Md.) complained about a lag in his federal coverage – is circulating a letter among Democrats that would call upon Republicans to ditch their insurance, paid in part by taxpayer funds, if they are committed to rolling back Democratic reforms.

The missive is expected to pick up a lot of support among liberals, who now make up a much larger proportion of House Democrats following the party’s 61-plus-seat loss earlier this month. Spearheading the effort: Crowley, Donna Edwards of Maryland, Tim Ryan of Ohio and Linda Sanchez of California.
“If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk,” Crowley writes in a letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“You cannot enroll in the very kind of coverage that you want for yourselves, and then turn around and deny it to Americans who don't happen to be Members of Congress. We also want to note that in 2011, the Federal government will pay $10,503.48 of the premiums for each member of Congress with a family policy under the commonly selected Blue Cross standard plan.”

Boehner and McConnell spokesmen declined comment. And Harris defenders argue that he’s simply availing himself of the same insurance enjoyed by private employees, coverage administered by many of the nation’s private health care companies.

On Monday, POLITICO reported that Harris, an anesthesiologist with practices in Baltimore and the Eastern Shore, stood up during a freshman benefits seminar to ask why his health coverage kicked in 28 days after his official Jan. 3rd swearing-in date. Harris opposed health care reforms, arguing that they were tantamount to socialized medicine, and pressured incumbent Democrat Frank Kratovil, who voted against the reforms twice, to commit to the repeal effort.

In his letter, Crowley taunts Boehner and McConnell, demanding to know how many Republicans will ditch their government subsidy, which typically covers two-thirds of their premiums.

“It is important for the American people to know whether the members of Congress and members-elect who have called for the repeal of health insurance reform are going to stand by their opposition by opting out of the care available to them at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. We look forward to your response in the coming days about exactly how many of the members in the Republican conference will be declining their taxpayer-supported health benefits.”

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45256.html
 
My brain is not functioning quite right today, does this say that Republicans are turning down the Congress Health Care Benefits? I am a little confused. This will be interesting to watch though.

I personally believe that if they want me to take on health care that they set up, they should be on the same plan. Though, since when does Politicians pass laws that affect both us and them?
 
Typical politics. One side crying "walk the walk" when they themselves NEVER have. Is the left willing to forgo their cushy coverage and participate in whatever coverage Obamacare provides? Will they forgo their cushy retirement and participate in only SS and whatever they personally invest in? Will they forgo gov cars, jets, limos, etc, etc and buy their own car, ride in coach class, and take a taxi? Will they buy their own lunch? Clothes? ETC ETC ETC

It is behemothic buffoonery for any politician to vociferate "walk the walk"!!!
 
I want to see...

ALL of the Congress Critters forced to participate in whatever they foist upon the citizens. That includes health care, AND any other legislation they vote on for US, but exempt themselves from.

IF I ever see any of them vote for something like this, then I might consider actually supporting that person in future races.

Yeah - like that will ever happen! Maybe a few could be coerced into voting for fairness such as that, but I doubt that enough of them are honorable enough to make it a reality.
 
When I said in the other thread in jest to ban politicians that might actually be a possible idea. What if it were Joe Smith the tire shop owner, John Doe the high school teacher, Ann Jones the grocery store manager, Cathy Williams the realtor, etc, etc that were make the decisions. I cannot imagine smart everyday non-politicians doing worse. In fact I would bet money they could make better decisions. :shrugs:
 
I think that is what the Founders actually intended...

...teachers, merchants, and other workers would serve a term in Congress or other elected government positions, and then GO BACK TO THEIR REAL JOBS. We don't need an elite class of professional politicians. But that is what we ended up with.
 
You do not see the Democrats dropping thier taxpayer funded health insurance either.

Love the Fatman

You don't see democrats starting a campaign to repeal public healthcare reform that will offer medical insurance to milions of Americans, either, do you? Not only that, the missive is asking anyone that wants to repeal healthcare reform to give up their government funded healthcare...not just republicans...

The point is, if you are claiming that government sponsored healthcare is socialism and unConstitutional, than you, as a politician, should be willing to forego your government provided health insurance because of your belief that it is socialist and unConstitutional.


Repealing healthcare reform because it requires tax money and government subsidizing (which makes it "socialist" in some strange world) while you sit around collecting government subsidized and tax-payer funded healthcare is just slightly hypocritical.

I believe that is the intent of the missive...
 
...teachers, merchants, and other workers would serve a term in Congress or other elected government positions, and then GO BACK TO THEIR REAL JOBS. We don't need an elite class of professional politicians. But that is what we ended up with.

Amen, Hallelujah, and where do I vote for YOU!!
 
Hey tyflier,

All I am saying it is the "pot is calling the kettle black".

The point is, that government sponsored healthcare is socialism and unConstitutional and I will totally agree that some type of reforms need to be done like the government letting people buy healthcare insurance across state lines.

To me what ever plan the government comes up with all Congressmen and Senators should have to be on that plan no matter the party.

Since when as any politician not been a hypocrite. I do not care what party they are from they are all hypocrites.

Love the Fatman
 
Hey tyflier,

All I am saying it is the "pot is calling the kettle black".
Happens all the time in Washington. People are now calling for Obama's impeachment...as if he has actually committed an impeachable offense, which...he hasn't...but that doesn't stop them from calling for it...but I digress...

The point is, that government sponsored healthcare is socialism and unConstitutional...
Specifically, how is a government option in healthcare socialism and unConstitutional? In what way is a government option even remotely socialist? I might agree if all private insurance was eradicated and banned. I might agree if every individual were required to buy into a government program, with no other option. But neither of those are evemn remotely the case.

So please be specific and explain to me precisely how ANY part of the medical legislation is socialist in nature...

...and I will totally agree that some type of reforms need to be done like the government letting people buy healthcare insurance across state lines.
...and litigation reform, malpractice reform, preventing private insurance companies from dropping clients when they get sick, stopping the exponential increases in cost, stopping insurance companies from deciding what medical treatments are "required" instead of doctors, and...and...and...

To me what ever plan the government comes up with all Congressmen and Senators should have to be on that plan no matter the party.
I agree 100%. I do not believe in congressional exemptions. I think it is total and complete B.S.

Since when as any politician not been a hypocrite. I do not care what party they are from they are all hypocrites.

Love the Fatman
Agreed. 100%.
 
I have not read the health care bill, it is HUGE!
I have heard a few things that I do not like, and there are far reaching implications that bode ill for the future....imo
but I think I could get on board with ANY plan, ANY plan at all that the elected critters and government workers among us would have to abide by. I don't care WHAT it is, if they are in on it, I am fine with it!
 
"I have not read the health care bill, it is HUGE!"

I highly doubt that many in Congress - including those who voted for it - read it either. However, I would also be much more comfortable with this huge piece of legislation if the Congress Critters saw fit to live with it themselves, rather than just decide it is good enough for those who pay their salaries - us!

I have a feeling that this will turn out to be another giant money and power grab by the Feds that SOUNDS enticing, but in the end, will serve bureaucrats better than the citizens it supposedly helps. I haven't been able to afford health insurance for several years - have just had to hope we don't get sick. So it may benefit me personally, I suppose. But I think that it will add layers of red tape to the whole system and change the way larger employers provide insurance - and their employees are likely to end up with worse insurance than they have now.

From what I read, the problems of litigation were barely addressed, if at all. I would have much preferred to have our current system "tinkered with" and many parts of it left alone for those for whom it was working.

There were a lot of pieces of the current system that could have been improved without the sweeping - and expensive - changes that were voted into existence. Just changing access for those without employer coverage, such as allowing non-employer groups to band together and be allowed to get the same breaks as large employers would have helped a lot, especially for those with existing conditions who can only get insurance if they work for a large company. And being able to purchase their insurance across state lines to increase competition, reforming the whole personal injury process, and providing a few more subsidies to very low income citizens, might have produced better results at far less cost and red tape than we will get with this behemoth of a plan. A mandate that insurance companies pass on maybe 20% of any savings they realize from an alert consumer would have gone a long way to give people the same incentives for careful shopping that they already have when shopping for most products. In fact, health insurance is one of the few (and the most expensive of) "products" that is not shopped for and purchased by the actual user of it (in the case of employer supplied insurance). If consumers had a financial incentive to shop for doctors, hospitals, and medicines in the same way that they comparison shop for everything else they purchase, then we would have some built in competition as in every other financial decision in our lives.

I have a friend who has worked in a few chiropractic offices as a massage therapist / medical assistant. He had to quit some of them because he did not want to be a part of the rampant Medicaid / Medicare fraud that he saw going on. I have no great hope that our "wonderfully efficient" (not!) government will not only not fix that, but that they can avoid even more fraud with a program that will dwarf Medicare.

But all of the common sense "tweaking" of our system is out of our hands now. Nothing we can do now but wait and see what happens, so that is what I will be doing. I just hope I don't end up having to say "I told you so". I really WANT to be wrong on this one!
 
From what I read, the problems of litigation were barely addressed, if at all.

Litigation, or the bigger issue, defensive medicine for fear of litigation, was not addressed at all except for the option for states to do projects. Basically, since almost all Congress Critters are attorneys and the trial lawyers are big donors (our VP, Mr. Biden, was a trial lawyer & sued physicians back in the day!), they didn't dare touch anything that might cut trial lawyers' incomes.

Medical malpractice costs & the cost of medical malpractice insurance are NOT, BTW, the biggest litigation cost driver in health care. It's defensive medicine. A survey in Massachusetts indicated that 25% or more of all x-rays, CAT scans, MRIs, ultrasounds, and blood tests that physicians order are ordered to make sure the chart will "look good" if there is a lawsuit down the road. That adds a lot to the cost of healthcare for everyone, but no physician is going to take the risk of losing a $1,000,000 lawsuit because she or he didn't order enough tests, so the tests keep getting ordered. Without some kind of protection from lawsuits, physicians are not going to slow down on ordering expensive tests.
 
Since you are an actively working doctor...

with an "inside" view, what do you think they COULD have done that would have discouraged excessive defensive medicine, protected doctors, yet still protected patients from those doctors who did cause harm?

Even though we are past the point of being able to vote on something that is actually reasonable and logical, I still like to have possible solutions in mind. If this reform DOES get reformed itself, it is nice to have possible solutions at hand. And I am just curious, too.
 
with an "inside" view, what do you think they COULD have done that would have discouraged excessive defensive medicine, protected doctors, yet still protected patients from those doctors who did cause harm?

Even though we are past the point of being able to vote on something that is actually reasonable and logical, I still like to have possible solutions in mind. If this reform DOES get reformed itself, it is nice to have possible solutions at hand. And I am just curious, too.

No one knows for sure. One thing would be no-fault compensation for patients with bad medical outcomes combined with an investigatory board made up of physicians, patient advocates & patients (no attorneys!) to investigate whether negligence had occurred followed by appropriate strong sanctions against negligent physicians.

Another would be special courts for medical malpractice where the people hearing the case would be trained in healthcare, possible a mixture of patients, physicians, nurses, and patient advocates, rather than the current situation, where the sympathy factor can gain a big award in some cases even though there was NO negligence.

A third would be a strong cap on non-economic damages ("pain and suffering"). That would limit the awards possible to economic damages + future income losses (which could still be millions of dollars for a birth-injured newborn).

A fourth would be to require plaintiffs' attorneys who bring losing cases to court to pay the costs of the court & the physician. That would incentivize plaintiffs' attorneys not to bring cases unless they have a good reason to think there was negligence & that the case is "winnable".

A fifth would be to provide immunity if the physician 100% followed best practice guidelines. There was a successful lawsuit years ago against a physician who followed the guideline that says that PSA (prostate specific antigen, the "prostate cancer" bloodtest) testing should be discussed before ordering. The patient was elderly, not in good health, and told his physician he did NOT want the test because he would NOT have treatment. The physician wrote down that the conversation occurred & didn't order a PSA test. The patient subsequently got prostate cancer & died (I don't even know if he died OF his prostate cancer or if he died of something else!) and the family sued for big $$ claiming that their dad would have been alive if only the doctor had GONE AGAINST THE PATIENT'S REQUEST and done a PSA test anyway.

The current situation is basically a lottery. Some people who did not suffer as a result of negligence win big bucks. Some people who did suffer from negligence get nothing. I don't know what the "right" answers are but these are some of the ideas floating around that MIGHT work and should be tried.
 
Whatever the solution...

I would like to see MORE involvement by doctors, other health care professionals, AND patients, but LESS involvement by lawyers. They have their place - let's keep them in it, lol!

I like solution #4 (when combined with some of the others). Attorneys now have plenty incentive to make a mountain out of a molehill - they need some disincentive to match it.
 
I would like to see MORE involvement by doctors, other health care professionals, AND patients, but LESS involvement by lawyers. They have their place - let's keep them in it, lol!

Agreed. I think a mixture of physicians, nurses, patients, allied health professionals and patient advocates would reach better conclusions. It would be plenty adversarial with that mixture, WITHOUT the attorneys, so it's not like physicians would get a free pass. Nurses, in particular, have a keen eye for bad medical practice & negligence. Allied health professionals, like radiology techs (hi Nanci!) and physical therapists, would bring more sorts of real knowledge of health care to the table, and would further improve the conclusions reached.
 
It's too bad the people in congress never sat down and discussed the real issues that hurt our medical system. I've said from the introduction of the bill that there are real, legitimate issues with the reform that need to be addressed, and you two ladies have done a good job of outlining many of them.

The problem is that instead of sitting down and addressing the real issues that can, and should, be fixed by legislation like this, one side called the other "socialist", and no real compromise and discussion took place. It was almost like watching kids on a playground...

I don't think there was much argument about their exclusion, though. I'm pretty sure that was a unanimous decision...
 
So this will be interesting to watch, although I can almost predict the outcome - that walk won't be walked...

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45256.html


Question to the OP.....Do you actually have knowledge of the Obamacare legislation AND the inner workings of healthcare industry or are you just spewing rhetoric in an attempt to get sheep to follow you?

I ask because I actually DO have experience in the healthcare industry... over 20 years in fact.... and on all sides of the business.... so I'm WELL aware of what this Obamacare BS REALLY means.

If you would like to debate it, then by all means state clearly YOUR thoughts on it and not some c&p BS you picked up on some left wing blog.

I look forward to this.... I really do....
 
Back
Top