Originally Posted by scotths

What does this have to do with Obama's healthcare plan? The article states that plans with small networks existed in the past but were eliminated due to popular demand. Perhaps that will happen again this time, perhaps not. What I don't see is how the healthcare plan created or led to the creation of these plans. Rates were increasing prior to passage of the bill and quality of plans has been declining as a result of a desire not to pay the increasing costs.

On a positive note, those who purchase plans created on the healthcare exchange will likely be able to chose on an individual level if they want a plan of this nature or are willing to pay somewhat more for a plan with a broader selection of Drs. This will offer a set of options to many who previously had no options or were limited to 1 possible plan.

Obama settled for this so he could get a so called win on the reform. Popular demand means that those plans may have been sub-standard and not meeting the real needs of people. I will check on that.

When you make "buying" health insurance mandatory, the industry wins and the people get a product that would not prevent bankruptcy for outlandish bills due to high co-pays and deductables. If you are extremely healthy or can afford a few thousand dollars a year in those charges, then it might be a plus. But most who will be mandated to buy insurance couldn't afford it in the first place. And, guess who's paying for those subsidized insurance plans? The tax payer. It's just a stealth way of feeding the industry while giving sub-standard products to the people.

And, as more and more businesses switch to sub-standard plans to save money, guess whose pay just went down in terms of paying more out of pocket expenses? It's a shell game. The insurance industry knows how to play that game like a fine tuned snake oil salesman.

It's shame that so many of us fell for one of the oldest trick in the book; We take home a toy worth a dollar that looked like a win at the fair, but it cost us $20 to win the darn thing. Didn't really get much did we?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Obama settled for this so he could get a so called win on the reform. Popular demand means that those plans may have been sub-standard and not meeting the real needs of people. I will check on that.

Then popular demand will eliminate them again... If people would prefer higher deductions from their income and slightly lower salaries but better healthcare benefits than companies are likely to respond by eliminating these plans now as they did previously. I agree it is unfortunate that this is a company wide as opposed to an individual decision, but it has been that way for some time. All of this has little or nothing to do with Obama's plan.

When you make "buying" health insurance mandatory, the industry wins and the people get a product that would not prevent bankruptcy for outlandish bills due to high co-pays and deductables. If you are extremely healthy or can afford a few thousand dollars a year in those charges, then it might be a plus. But most who will be mandated to buy insurance couldn't afford it in the first place. And, guess who's paying for those subsidized insurance plans? The tax payer. It's just a stealth way of feeding the industry while giving sub-standard products to the people.

It's shame that so many of us fell for one of the oldest trick in the book; We take home a toy worth a dollar that looked like a win at the fair, but it cost us $20 to win the darn thing. Didn't really get much did we?

Some of those people who can afford a few thousand in charges are now faced with 10's or 100's of thousands in charges and no way to obtain insurance. Many people fall into this category or are at risk of falling into this category. This will provide much in the way of peace of mind to many individuals in addition to the tangible benefits.

Those with low incomes should be helped by subsidies. Hopefully politicians in the future will adjust those subsidies as needed to find a good balance between individual contribution and help when needed. To me this is a framework not a finished product. The current system has little in the way of knobs that can be twisted to fix problems and imbalances. The new system does. The framework was what was possible today; in addition to its benefits it makes possible changes in the future that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

What's this health insurance thing everyone is talking about? I never saw one before.

I shared with someone in this thread that I would look for the Kucinich video where he was very critical of the health care reform bill after Obama's public address on the issue.

So, for what it's worth...........

Correspondent Jack Rice speaks with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) following President Obama's address to Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if5fgI-w-CY

Originally Posted by Deb C

I shared with someone in this thread that I would look for the Kucinich video where he was very critical of the health care reform bill after Obama's public address on the issue.

So, for what it's worth...........

Correspondent Jack Rice speaks with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) following President Obama's address to Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if5fgI-w-CY

That was me, and thanks.

Kucinich made essentially two points about the bill in question: 1) It's not a single-payer system, and 2) it does not effectively address pharmaceutical costs. (There are other costs it also doesn't effectively address, but Kucinich didn't point that out.) When asked whether, given these facts, the reform was worthy of support anyway, Kucinich did not answer.

Kucinich is of course right that it's not a single-payer system and that is where we eventually need to be. He's also right that it doesn't effectively address the costs of health care and that's something we need to deal with sooner rather than later. But, as his non-answer to that question about whether it is worthy of support regardless suggests, that doesn't mean the current bill should not have been passed. The fact that it is not as good as the ideal solution and leaves some problems unsolved does not mean that it actually makes things worse for the health-care consumer, which (given that nothing better was politically possible) is the only basis on which the law should not have been passed.

He also said something else that you should bear in mind, Deb, and was right on this as well: to get a single-payer system will require a national movement and years of effort. Since we do not at this time have that national movement, it is unrealistic to expect a single-payer system to have come out of the recent health-care reform effort. What is realistic is the assessment that our work of reforming the system has only just begun. I don't think anyone would seriously assert that the new health-care law is a finished product. Certainly I would not.

... is reporting today:

Originally Posted by Publius

... is reporting today:

I knew the Brits weren't completely nuts.

They'll still have a single-payer socialized medicine system it looks like, just a more decentralized one with less bureaucracy in terms of medical decisions themselves. I doubt we'll ever come to the point of having health care itself, as opposed to health insurance (that is, doctors, hospitals, etc.) be government-run. There are plenty of advanced countries that don't and have very good health care systems, including France, Germany, and Japan.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They'll still have a single-payer socialized medicine system it looks like, just a more decentralized one with less bureaucracy in terms of medical decisions themselves. I doubt we'll ever come to the point of having health care itself, as opposed to health insurance (that is, doctors, hospitals, etc.) be government-run. There are plenty of advanced countries that don't and have very good health care systems, including France, Germany, and Japan.

Nothing succeeds like failure. Moreover, think of what a beautiful world it would be if only the nineteenth-century buggy-whip lobby had succeeded in socializing the transportation industry. Alas, to those like Brian Rush, it sadly did not. And instead of horses to take us from point A to point B, we now have cool SUVs. "Bah!", says Brian Rush et al.

Simply put, Progress is not the aim of Progressives, but mere Power: The mere bureaucratic power of a few like Brian Rush to dictate to the masses how life shall be lived from cradle to grave.

Up yers, Mr. Rush! Up yers!

Originally Posted by Publius

think of what a beautiful world it would be if only the nineteenth-century buggy-whip lobby had succeeded in socializing the transportation industry...

...Simply put, Progress is not the aim of Progressives, but mere Power: The mere bureaucratic power of a few like Brian Rush to dictate to the masses how life shall be lived from cradle to grave.

Well if your employers are this afraid of what you call " socialized medicine" then I guess their general opposition to stem cell research is warranted.

Your side may have an aversion to facts, but I've got to hand it to you and yours, you are consistant. :: :

Support for health reform reaches high in Kaiser poll

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...in-kaiser-poll

I'm liking this trend -

Support for health reform reaches high in Kaiser poll

As the law further implements andthe t-bagger horseshirt continues to look increasingly stupid alarmist, it's only gonna get better.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm liking this trend -

Of course you are. The ruling class learned long ago that people will get accustomed to damn near any outrages, given time, effective propaganda organs, and the illusion of control over the system. We truly are at the pinnacle of our political paradigm.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course you are. The ruling class learned long ago that people will get accustomed to damn near any outrages, given time, effective propaganda organs, and the illusion of control over the system. We truly are at the pinnacle of our political paradigm.

And all this time, I thought *I* was a cynic....

Wow, a poll by the foundation named after a major health insurer says this is a popular bill. I'm shocked and moved by this news.

Meanwhile, CBS, Public Policy Polling, Rasmussen, and Pew are all showing double-digit margins against it.

What is it, a big conspiracy of pollsters against InsuranceAid or a single self-interested entity lying through its teeth?

Originally Posted by independent

What is it, a big conspiracy of pollsters against InsuranceAid or a single self-interested entity lying through its teeth?

It's not a conspiracy, it's a possibly-deliberate and possibly-not improper combining of reservations about the act coming from totally different positions for totally different reasons advocating totally different alternatives as if they constituted a single opinion.

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...in-kaiser-poll

I'm liking this trend -







As the law further implements andthe t-bagger horseshirt continues to look increasingly stupid alarmist, it's only gonna get better.

I urge you to consider the facts in Dr. John Geyman's essay.

Hijacked, Stolen Health Care Reform I: Why Health Care Costs Will Not Be Contained

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), our new health care legislation, in March was hailed by its supporters as an historic event of the magnitude of Social Security and Medicare. But four months later, it remains controversial, with repeated polls showing three large groups of divisive opinion, including those who would work to repeal it and others who believe that it will make no difference. The Democrats have launched a $125 million PR campaign to defend the new law amidst growing signs that many Democrats facing re-election are failing to get political traction on the issue. (1)

We are being advised by many to "wait and see" how this complex new bill plays out over the next five to ten years, but we can already know what its outcomes will be. More than 30 years of health policy science, including documentation of the repeated failures of incremental changes built into the new law, together with well-entrenched trends in our market-based system, allow us to project its outcomes with confidence. For this legislation has been molded and crafted by the political power and money of corporate stakeholders in the medical-industrial complex.

Five previous posts in 2009 described the uneasy "alliance" of the five biggest players -- the insurance industry, the drug industry, the hospital industry, business and organized medicine. They will do just fine with the new law at the expense of patients, families and Main Street.

Entire essay:
http://pnhp.org/news/2010/july/hijac...dr-john-geyman

Originally Posted by Deb C

I urge you to consider the facts in Dr. John Geyman's essay.

Hijacked, Stolen Health Care Reform I: Why Health Care Costs Will Not Be Contained

....

Five previous posts in 2009 described the uneasy "alliance" of the five biggest players -- the insurance industry, the drug industry, the hospital industry, business and organized medicine. They will do just fine with the new law at the expense of patients, families and Main Street.

My biggest beef with this recent reform legislation was precisely this -- it does little or nothing to contain costs. But cost (specifically runaway health care inflation) is the 800-pound gorilla when it comes to our health care mess. If costs could be contained first, the rest of the reforms become a lot easier and sustainable. I just don't see how this reform is sustainable without cost containment.

And you're right about the industries doing "just fine." While Big Business is seen as a rightist constituency, it's an example of what I've been saying -- Big Business has bought and paid for both parties, the main difference being which big industries benefit -- and where they get the money.

I suppose the frustration on the left might be that this isn't universal single payer and that for-profit entities are still getting much of the booty. But for those who want an eventual "public option" and even universal single payer, it is an incremental step bringing us closer to it. I just hope future reforms can control costs and not just be more of the same old corporatist giveaway.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course you are. The ruling class learned long ago that people will get accustomed to damn near any outrages, given time, effective propaganda organs, and the illusion of control over the system. We truly are at the pinnacle of our political paradigm.

Wow, you'd give Ayn a run for the money as the dire alarmist.

Originally Posted by independent

Wow, a poll by the foundation named after a major health insurer says this is a popular bill. I'm shocked and moved by this news.

Meanwhile, CBS, Public Policy Polling, Rasmussen, and Pew are all showing double-digit margins against it.

What is it, a big conspiracy of pollsters against InsuranceAid or a single self-interested entity lying through its teeth?

Nope sorry, the two most recent polls before this one, AP and Gallup, also showed a majority favoring Health Reform. With the usual exception of Rasmussen, they all our trending toward favorable.

Oh, regarding how much HCR was really about lining the pockets of big business at the expense of the common man - well, as was said in Chinatown - "follow the money."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40387.html

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already vowed to invest $75 million in the mid-term elections. And health insurers are also planning to play big in November, although the specifics remain in flux. Both groups are hedging their bets by aligning themselves with some moderate or conservative Democrats in case Republicans don't win control of Congress.


Both America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and its Coalition for Medicare Choices are expected to play a major role in the messaging, along with individual companies. But neither group, according to sources, plans to directly attack Democrats, which would risk infuriating the White House as it writes reform regulations as well as the Blue Dog Democrats who opposed the legislation. But the negative messages could still create headaches this fall for health care supporters.


For instance, districts with large populations of seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will likely be inundated with ads explaining it was health reform – not insurers – that is responsible for their higher bills and slashed benefits, one industry official said.


Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the industry trade group AHIP, wouldn’t discuss the organization’s political battle plan except to say, “We are going to continue to talk about the need to address skyrocketing medical costs and the significant impact that Medicare Advantage cuts will continue to have on the 11 million seniors in the program.”


A handful of large insurance companies are considering a separate campaign aimed at building long-term relationships with Democrats, including those who bucked their party leadership on reform or who stood by the insurance industry on other issues.


“They understand and recognize that it’s not a partisan effort, that they need to play in the middle on both sides of the aisle,” one source familiar with the discussions said.

I don't find it surprizing but I'm always amazed how a few million dollars of advertising can lead Glibertarians and Far Lett gotta-have-it-all-right-now types so easily around by the nose.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I urge you to consider the facts in Dr. John Geyman's essay.

Hijacked, Stolen Health Care Reform I: Why Health Care Costs Will Not Be Contained

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), our new health care legislation, in March was hailed by its supporters as an historic event of the magnitude of Social Security and Medicare. But four months later, it remains controversial, with repeated polls showing three large groups of divisive opinion, including those who would work to repeal it and others who believe that it will make no difference. The Democrats have launched a $125 million PR campaign to defend the new law amidst growing signs that many Democrats facing re-election are failing to get political traction on the issue. (1)

We are being advised by many to "wait and see" how this complex new bill plays out over the next five to ten years, but we can already know what its outcomes will be. More than 30 years of health policy science, including documentation of the repeated failures of incremental changes built into the new law, together with well-entrenched trends in our market-based system, allow us to project its outcomes with confidence. For this legislation has been molded and crafted by the political power and money of corporate stakeholders in the medical-industrial complex.

Five previous posts in 2009 described the uneasy "alliance" of the five biggest players -- the insurance industry, the drug industry, the hospital industry, business and organized medicine. They will do just fine with the new law at the expense of patients, families and Main Street.

Entire essay:
http://pnhp.org/news/2010/july/hijac...dr-john-geyman

I have no issue with what he or you believe needs to be done from here.

I see HCR has helped move the ball down the field. And rather than spend my time bitchin that it only tooks us so far, I'll spend my limited time and energy trying to pick up more yards.

That's a player's prespective. Spectators are the ones that spend their time bitchin about what their team didn't do - they even tend to miss observing the next play.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, you'd give Ayn a run for the money as the dire alarmist.

Whatever, status quo uber alles-man. Getting your type to open their eyes is getting less and less relevant all the time. Time comes to actually get to fixing things, you guys will be easy enough just to shuffle off to your retirement-institutions and allow to crumble back to dust in your own short time. Until then, you may as well enjoy your delusions-of-adequacy. No skin off the rest of our asses.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Whatever, status quo uber alles-man. Getting your type to open their eyes is getting less and less relevant all the time. Time comes to actually get to fixing things, you guys will be easy enough just to shuffle off to your retirement-institutions and allow to crumble back to dust in your own short time. Until then, you may as well enjoy your delusions-of-adequacy. No skin off the rest of our asses.

hey, now play nice or I won't support you guys getting that extra 6 years of SS bene's you don't seem to want to pay for - damn pinko commies - did you pick that up back in St. Pete or is that an Oregon coast thingee?

You're not planning to do the Cobain exit when the time comes are you?

As noted above, it sure looks like us Progressives pissed off the corportists. I guess you Glibs won't have our backs, again, on that. I guess you and Indy are still down at the rail station taking another toke.

Originally Posted by playwrite

hey, now play nice or I won't support you guys getting that extra 6 years of SS bene's you don't seem to want to pay for...

You don't get it (big surprise, for a Boomer ). It doesn't matter what you support or whether or not you support any particular thing. You're on the edge of irrelevance already, and once we get down to the actual fixing of stuff, you'll be all the way there. Or at least close enough as to make no difference. Your peers have already had your time to hold the reins; it got us here, remember? The fix comes after you're gone -- or at least removed from being able to have any kind of significant effect.

So enjoy your corporatist wage-serfdom paradigm. I appreciate the fact that you believe you have worked hard to put it in place, and that you think it is a good thing. Your views are absolutely irrelevant to whether we keep it or not.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You don't get it (big surprise, for a Boomer ). It doesn't matter what you support or whether or not you support any particular thing. You're on the edge of irrelevance already, and once we get down to the actual fixing of stuff, you'll be all the way there. Or at least close enough as to make no difference. Your peers have already had your time to hold the reins; it got us here, remember? The fix comes after you're gone -- or at least removed from being able to have any kind of significant effect.

So enjoy your corporatist wage-serfdom paradigm. I appreciate the fact that you believe you have worked hard to put it in place, and that you think it is a good thing. Your views are absolutely irrelevant to whether we keep it or not.

Again with trying to put Boomers into the grave already.

They are going to be around for at least another 25 years, and there are still a lot of them out there.

Once more, I suggest burying the hatchet. A lot of things sucked before Boomers came along, and a lot of things will still suck after they're gone.

Sometimes I wish I'd never heard of S&H, generational archetypes and turnings. Do we gin stuff up around here that has no real-life equivalent? Are we too quick to point fingers at other generations when we really just need to shut up and get stuff fixed?

Lately I find myself drifting away from this place because the fights are just getting plain dull. Boomer on Xer, Xer on Millie, Xer on Silent, Boomer on Silent....arghhh....

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Again with trying to put Boomers into the grave already.

Nah. Not in the grave, just in their senescence. And in the superminority. That's what marks the resolution of the 4T era, after all, is the Boomers 'fading from the scene'.

They are going to be around for at least another 25 years, and there are still a lot of them out there.

Too true. And they are very important to the Crisis we're going into. But they're well-nigh irrelevant to its resolution. And that's what we're talking about. Suck will continue for as long as people are around; that's all too true. But the Boomers' opportunity to have a major say in the suck is drawing to a close. It's worth the rest of us keeping in mind, even if the members of that particular gen don't want to...