How will either bill as currently written affect you?
Here is the easy to use Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Cuz I don't want an automated system spending my tax dollars or making my health care decisions.

THe automated system doesn't make any decisions in the French system, the doctor does.

The patient has an electronic card. The doctor has a small terminal in her office. She swipes the card and up comes the patients medical records, The physican records the purpose for the visit and what she did. The terminal then calculates the fee the patient pays to the doctor based on the information the doctor typed into the record. The patient then pays the dcotor this fee.

The price of all services is standardized and posted in the doctor's waiting room, so the patient knows what each thing the doctor suggests is goign to cost him.

The insurance company is automatically notified and the patient (not the doctor) gets a reimbursement check for all or part of the fee he paid to the doctor.

The French system is quite expensive (although less than the US sytem) because it automatically covers everything the doctor thinks is required.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, the smartest person would wonder why administrative costs need to be a factor at all. In France, everything is automated, and administrative costs are less than 1% by all parties combined.

Cuz I don't want an automated system spending my tax dollars or making my health care decisions.

That's not administrative, unless you operate on auto-pilot. I'm thinking of the health record updates, prescription writing and filling, and the insurance submission and payment.

Originally Posted by The Rani, in all her magnificence

And can the smartest person of all spell "administrative?"

... or 'Because'?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what is the impact on childless married couples at various income levels - or, for that matter, single individuals?

Inquiring minds want to know - or is that somehow classified information?

My understanding it is has no impact if you already have insurance.

Posts 1270, 1273,1274,1275 and 1277 were about the funniest exchanges I've seen on this forum. LMAO! Thanks!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Find an internist.

What? Are you to good to do a physical or something? Fine! What do I have to do for YOU for you to give me a HEAD exam?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

What? Are you to good to do a physical or something? Fine! What do I have to do for YOU for you to give me a HEAD exam?

Yuk, an obvious jump the shark moment.

Senator Bernie Sanders talks to Ezra Klein about a provision in this health care bill that I really like.

don't you mean, "delenda carthago est?"

There is just something a bit off about this story..... maybe someone here can figure out the factor that holds it together and is the key to understanding this development?

State AGs request Reid, Pelosi drop Nebraska Medicaid funds from health bill
By Jordan Fabian - 12/30/09 06:57 PM ET
Attorneys general from 13 states penned the top two Democrats in Congress Wednesday requesting they remove extra Medicaid funds directed toward Nebraska.

The attorneys general, all Republicans, say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tacked on extra Medicare funds to the Senate bill to buy the vote of holdout centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on healthcare legislation.

The state officials, led by South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, say that the provision is unconstitutional and ask that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) remove it as to avoid a lawsuit.

I wonder how many of those 13 state officials have aspirations for even higher elected office?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I wonder how many of those 13 state officials have aspirations for even higher elected office?

Not that I would ever vote for him, but I can tell you now that McMaster is running for governor of SC as we write.
He is of course a Republican and one of the top two in name recognition, thus his chances of winning both the nomination and the general election are good barring a scandal.

There is just something a bit off about this story..... maybe someone here can figure out the factor that holds it together and is the key to understanding this development?

Quote:
State AGs request Reid, Pelosi drop Nebraska Medicaid funds from health bill
By Jordan Fabian - 12/30/09 06:57 PM ET
Attorneys general from 13 states penned the top two Democrats in Congress Wednesday requesting they remove extra Medicaid funds directed toward Nebraska.

The attorneys general, all Republicans, say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tacked on extra Medicare funds to the Senate bill to buy the vote of holdout centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on healthcare legislation.

The state officials, led by South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, say that the provision is unconstitutional and ask that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) remove it as to avoid a lawsuit.
I wonder how many of those 13 state officials have aspirations for even higher elected office.

As my spouse often remarks, I am a great believer in fairness. I am glad the bill passed but that provision is indeed an absolute disgrace totally in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, and I would cheer if it were declared unconstitutional. I'm sure I would regard most or all of those AGs as jerks, but this time they happen to be right.

There is only one way to settle this:

At the end of August, Nebraska takes on South Carolina in the season's first college football game.

If the Cornhuskers win, the "pork" stays in; if the Gamecocks win, it goes.

We still do not have anything like a national health care system and the costs are still a major concern. Following is recent example of poblems with piecemeal process.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aHoYSI84VdL0

"Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little."...

Ezra Klein on keeping them honest.

Originally Posted by The New Republic

In the context of legislation that would cost nearly a trillion dollars, it's easy to overlook a provision that, on its own, would cost a mere billion. But one such provision in the House bill could make a huge difference in the success of reform--if House-Senate negotiators put it in the final package and especially if, upon doing so, they make it even stronger.

The provision, Section 104 of the House bill, would make $1 billion available to states in order to monitor possible insurer price gouging during the transition to health reform. The idea, in a nutshell, is to provide states with resources to review premium increases in the next few years--and to make recommendations on whether or not price gouging has occurred.

The Senate bill has no corresponding section. But it really should. Health insurance premiums can increase by double digits year after year, with small businesses taking the hardest hits. Insurers could use health reform as an excuse to force even bigger increases, enlarging profits and discrediting health reform in the process. As one of the “immediate reforms” under the House bill, the provision’s success or failure would help set the tone for how people see health reform in 2010.

But it’s not enough for the federal government simply to make the money available. The bill must make sure the funds are used effectively.

States vary greatly in quality of insurance regulation and, in many cases, they just aren’t very effective.

If we start with the lowest cost floor possible than base compounding will be more moderate.

Since too many people around here are completely devoid of any sense of humor whatsoever, I'm probably going to get "jamesdglicked" for this, but I don't care:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMfMeVk6I18

Ray Stevens had a career of novelty songs that has been over for at least two decades. I find it no surprise that this Silent contemporary of Elvis is out of touch and far behind.

For what its worth - I did love his "Mr. Businessman" which is very leftist song against the three piece suit types propping up capitalism and he was the first to record the great Kris Kristofferson song "Sunday Morning Coming Down" although others have done it far better including Johnny Cash and the writer himself.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Since too many people around here are completely devoid of any sense of humor whatsoever, I'm probably going to get "jamesdglicked" for this, but I don't care:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMfMeVk6I18

Satire.
Cool. :

Its coming down to the wire, perhaps by this weekend to CBO and a final vote process next week -

http://mcjoan.dailykos.com/

Rangel: Goal is to Have Bill to CBO by Saturday

After a marathon negotiation session yesterday between Obama, administration officials, and Congressional leaders, there seems to be some narrowing of differences, enough that one of those leaders, Charlie Rangel, thinks they can have the bill to CBO on Saturday.

The key issues seem to be narrowed down to the House insistence on a national exchange framework and changes to the financing structure--the excise tax in particular.

After posting new polling that those favoring a heath bill poked up over those opposed, 49%-46%, this week, Ezra makes this keen insight about sausage - while one may not want to see it being made, the final product can be pretty yummy -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...th-care_r.html

I wouldn't make too much of this poll: The country remains divided. But I'm interested to see polling on the bill three months from now. My hunch is that voters take their cues from process. A bill that fails is a bad bill, or else why would it have failed? And a bill that passes is a good bill, or else why would it have passed? Perceptions are amplified by outcomes.

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are planning a counteroffensive on the legislation in the aftermath of its passage. I don't put much stock in such things, but what they will get is an opportunity to message off of a whole different narrative. After the signing ceremony, uncertainty gives way to accomplishment, and sausage-making gives way to sausage. And sausage polls considerably better than sausage-making.

mmmm, sausage.

Speaking of sausage:

I can show you what a real Italian sausage looks like!

Well according what happened last night, the answer is a resounding NO at least for now.....

Originally Posted by playwrite

mmmm, sausage.

Playwrite,

In a lot of ways, that description scares me. After the Patriot Act, and several of the other power-hungry and in some ways destructive bills which have passed even though they were bad bills, it causes me to lose faith in the people that they are just going to fall for what seems to me a variant of "post hoc ergo propter hoc." And I don't care that the people are different, they seem to show the same bad tendencies.

If it passes and works, only then will I call it good. Right now I question the motives and tendencies of the "elected officials" and that darkens my view of the current product. They tend to produce crap all of the time, and often a lot of it is called "good" for what seems like exactly that reason. (If it was bad, they wouldn't pass it.)

What if I told you that I could write a health-care bill that is guaranteed to receive the support of ... Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett?

The centerpiece consists of a national "charity care" program, reimbursing health-care providers for dispensing uncompensated and/or undercompensated care to the uninsured (who would have to provide proof of, among other things, U.S. citizenship at the outset) - funded mainly through taxes on such items as pre-paid phone cards and international money transfers (think of those "Envios A Mexico" signs one sees at grocery stores, check-cashing outlets, etc.), perhaps even including incandescent light bulbs to bring environmentalists on board (!) - and since each state would be given considerable leeway as to what medical services would be eligible for reimbursement, abortion is effectively taken out of the debate; there could also be an "equality clause" to the effect that if a state reimburses for Viagra etc., it must also do so for birth-control pills (but not necessarily abortion), and vice versa, and other related issues along these same lines.

Since Hatch and Bennett's home state (Utah) already does this (the charity care part anyway), wouldn't they be scandalized as hypocrites if they opposed it?

In return, the Republicans get some combination of tort reform, de-regulating the sale of private insurance plans across state lines, and/or medical savings accounts.

Otherwise you can set the alarm clock on health-care reform for 2025 or thereabouts.

Pelosi says that the Senate HCR cannot pass the house.

The Jon Stewart quote from the other night is so fitting:

"It’s not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are
playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the
Democrats are in the nurse’s office because, once again, they glued their
balls to their thighs."

No major bills get passed by Congress after the August recess starts.
It seems to be a pretty immutable rule in Washington.

But what about the bipartisan-sponsored Healthy Americans Act?

Is that now back in the hopper?