birdog1960 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Good luck codifying that and having it pass one election cycle. You probably don't recognize it, but you've been advocating a conservative line as it relates to healthcare, because you know that people need to take a bigger charge of their health and their healthcare spending. The current legislation does nothing to fix the fundamental problem. the committee to make these types odf decisions is already in the bill if i understand it correctly. this was tom daschle's idea which he described in his book prior to the bill being passed. it's called the federal coordinating council for cognitive effective research. this is the group some have pointed at screaming "death panel". it seems we both agree that something like it is necessary. therefore, you're espousing liberal principles knowingly or not. i think the fact that we're both apparently crossing an imaginary ideologic line in the sand is a good thing. it would be great if those in power would do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Ther is no shortage of free-market health care solutions for the Republicans to emphasize after the SC (hopefully) overturns this monster. Among them: • End the tax discrimination against individual insurance buyers. • Let consumers buy plans across state lines, giving states an incentive to rein in their out-of-control benefit mandates. • Let small groups establish association health plans to get benefits of scale. • Ease the rules that are choking off the medical savings account market. • Reform the nation's tort laws. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 • Let consumers buy plans across state lines, giving states an incentive to rein in their out-of-control benefit mandates. Because of states' regulatory bodies, that's actually a lot more difficult than it seems. You basically have to deregulate the insurance industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Because of states' regulatory bodies, that's actually a lot more difficult than it seems. You basically have to deregulate the insurance industry. Finally, sombody acknowledges it. Instead of State charged with oversight, Federal oversight would be in place.... and insurance compaines can do business in any state they choose as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Finally, sombody acknowledges it. Instead of State charged with oversight, Federal oversight would be in place.... and insurance compaines can do business in any state they choose as it is. And I'm saying it's not that simple...it's not just "who does business where," but how, and what consumer rights are. And it's complicated by the simple fact that health insurance isn't even insurance these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Finally, sombody acknowledges it. Instead of State charged with oversight, Federal oversight would be in place.... and insurance compaines can do business in any state they choose as it is. I agree and think the Federal Government should run everything because it would make everything more organized. Edited March 30, 2012 by ieatcrayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I agree and think the Federal Government should run everything because it would make everything more organized. oh, sarcasm, good stuff. Healthcare, and the regualtion thereof should be left primarily to the States to decide what they want. Like B-Man mentioned, people in each State could if they wish form groups to mitigate risk how they see fit. It makes alot of sense, it a State wanted a Public Option through a non-profit TPA, they vote to do it... if they wanted laz rules in insurance pratices to encourage more companies to write business there, they can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Because of states' regulatory bodies, that's actually a lot more difficult than it seems. You basically have to deregulate the insurance industry. I don't see why that is the case. If a company wants to do business in a state, comply with the law in that state. That's the case in many industries. The states regulate many things. • Reform the nation's tort laws. . LOL, please God no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I don't see why that is the case. If a company wants to do business in a state, comply with the law in that state. That's the case in many industries. The states regulate many things. LOL, please God no. I presume you think that tort reform would have no cost benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 LOL, please God no. LOL.....Please do. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) I presume you think that tort reform would have no cost benefits? It's just bad for the average person there's a veil of propaganda over the eyes of the voting body that votes for tort reform. When you are injured you get a day in court to make your case and an arbitrary cap won't provide justice (and isn't constitutional) when every case is different. This is how the court's work, this is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Tort reform is not the answer. "It'll save costs though!"...well ya...save costs in what manner? Taking money away from an injured plaintiff who made their case and a jury of their peers awarded them a set amount they found compensated them for their injury. That isn't the way we want to save on costs. People before profits. People's rights before corporate lobbying. If that makes me a leftist nut to you then I'm ok with that. EDIT: Also most studies show the impact damage awards actually have on medical costs in negligible. It's more the pay-for-service system and patients higher service expectations than defensive medicine. Also, the concept of "frivolous lawsuits" being out of control is complete propaganda. Tort reform is simply an industry trying to limit individuals ability to obtain fair compensation for their injuries. Edited March 30, 2012 by dayman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Barry's a lawyer and never intended to consider tort reform. Which shows you how much he really cared about making things cheaper. It was all about what group he could protect or deal he could make to get his POS bill passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 the committee to make these types odf decisions is already in the bill if i understand it correctly. this was tom daschle's idea which he described in his book prior to the bill being passed. it's called the federal coordinating council for cognitive effective research. this is the group some have pointed at screaming "death panel". it seems we both agree that something like it is necessary. therefore, you're espousing liberal principles knowingly or not. i think the fact that we're both apparently crossing an imaginary ideologic line in the sand is a good thing. it would be great if those in power would do the same. Whether you call it a death panel or a coordinating counsel, it comes into play after the person is already covered. If we apply your example to the panel's role it would be unworkable, because doctors would need to constantly consult to see if the diabetic was also a smoker and if he's eligible for a bypass. Talk about increasing the bureaucracy and adding complexity. You are also supporting the insurers' policies to exclude people with preexisting conditions or ability to price policies higher for higher risk patients. Obamacare does not do that upfront, but promises to cutoff benefits when costs aren't "justified" by the coordinating panel's standards. And that would last exactly one election cycle, until a grandma is thrown off the cliff by the panel, and politicians rush to save future grandmas, costs be damned. At least the insurance companies are accountable for their costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Whether you call it a death panel or a coordinating counsel, it comes into play after the person is already covered. If we apply your example to the panel's role it would be unworkable, because doctors would need to constantly consult to see if the diabetic was also a smoker and if he's eligible for a bypass. Talk about increasing the bureaucracy and adding complexity. we do that every visit anyway by taking a history. if in doubt, detecting nicotine in urine is a simple test. very little beauracray involved. as far as the election cycle, ya think obama got into this at all to get more votes? this was poltical bravery rarely before seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 we do that every visit anyway by taking a history. if in doubt, detecting nicotine in urine is a simple test. very little beauracray involved. as far as the election cycle, ya think obama got into this at all to get more votes? this was poltical bravery rarely before seen. To borrow a phrase from Justice Kagan: "Wow. Wow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 After further inspection, Obamacare has a $17T funding gap: http://news.yahoo.com/another-17-trillion-surprise-found-obamacare-133210667.html It's a gift, people. A gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) After further inspection, Obamacare has a $17T funding gap: http://news.yahoo.com/another-17-trillion-surprise-found-obamacare-133210667.html It's a gift, people. A gift. Yeah, I saw this on the news. You couldn't turn on any of the major news channels this weekend without this massive accounting error being discussed everywhere. Oh, wait. No. That was the Lottery story. My bad. Edited April 1, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 To borrow a phrase from Justice Kagan: "Wow. Wow." Doc, you keep getting it wrong. She said "Bow, Wow". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 After further inspection, Obamacare has a $17T funding gap: http://news.yahoo.com/another-17-trillion-surprise-found-obamacare-133210667.html It's a gift, people. A gift. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years. LOL Talk about a useful article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years. LOL Talk about a useful article. Dude, you are coming off as an idiot. Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts