ABC & NBC refuse to run nat'l ad opposing healthcare plan

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Nice blaming the GLB act on Clinton. Obviously it was a compromise and no Clinton did not write it, but he did sign and for that I agree it was a mistake. However, blame should be spread considering Senator Phil Gramm R-TX, Rep. Jim Leach R-IA and Rep. Tom Bliley R-VA wrote the legislation. I remember at the time thinking it was a bad idea, but banks and insurance cos were arguing that they needed to be able to compete on the World level and no such prohibitions were in place internationally. They argued they couldn't compete and would sooner or later be bought out and become international subsidiaries. Obviously the legislation was ramrodded through a Republican Congress and Clinton weakened by his cigar problem signed off on it. That being said, I agree with you that this was a mistake and opened up a pandoras box enabling the current situation.

[Magox]

So you believe that the Dot Com bubble didn't contribute to his "surplus"?

 

And I do agree that it wasn't just Clinton who authored the repeal of GS. This was something that GreenSpan was advocating for many many years before Clinton even got into office. But the bottom line is that Clinton did make the executive decision to do so.

 

Clinton's Legacy was much more positive a few years ago and specially during his tenure, but more and more, every year that passes, it is becoming more tainted. Many bad decisions, that didn't seem so bad at the time are surfacing and we are still paying for many of them today.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree with Clinton's Legacy.

[/dev/null]

So you believe that the Dot Com bubble didn't contribute to his "surplus"?

 

You're trying to convince the same guy who said...

 

Finally, I worked for Clinton and some conservative Dems who were the primary reason that the budget got balanced in the 90s.

 

It's like trying to have a discussion of the tuck rule with a Pats* fan

[jjamie12]

Down boy, the lie or misrepresentation in the deal is that by stating there will be rationing (how can you say this when you are talking about something in the future) ignores the fact currently there already is rationing and choices being made.

I guess I just don't understand how you can say this. How is it possible that there WON'T be even more rationing? You're increasing demand for health care without doing anything to the supply of health care.

 

I understand and agree that there already is 'rationing' and 'bureaucrats' making decisions for folks... How is it possible that it won't be even worse when you add 40 million (or whatever the number is today) people in the mix?

 

I'm genuinely interested, because I think we need reforms... I just don't understand how this does anything to help what appears to be the 'real' problem, which is exploding costs.

[ThereIsNoDog]

There will most certainly be rationing under the public health option, Medicare, and Medicaid. To think that the government won't do it, whereas insurance companies have been doing it to keep their own costs down, is sheer naivete.

[Alaska Darin]

Your analysis of the Clinton economy is way off and I while there was Dot Com deal going on it certainly wasn't the reason Clinton was the only President in modern history to reduce the size of the DC and Federal bureaucracy, which was what I addressed. We were talking about belt tightening at the Federal Level, not the economy. P.S. Bush has a prosperous economy after the .com deal subsided, yet he undid Clinton's cuts and went way above their previous levels if you look Department by Department staffing level so to quote Maxwell Smart.... "missed the mark by __________ that much."

Mostly because it didn't happen...

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I guess I just don't understand how you can say this. How is it possible that there WON'T be even more rationing? You're increasing demand for health care without doing anything to the supply of health care.

 

I understand and agree that there already is 'rationing' and 'bureaucrats' making decisions for folks... How is it possible that it won't be even worse when you add 40 million (or whatever the number is today) people in the mix?

 

I'm genuinely interested, because I think we need reforms... I just don't understand how this does anything to help what appears to be the 'real' problem, which is exploding costs.

 

I am not sure I buy the increase in demand argument. You would be increasing the number of people paying into the system - young people would actually start paying - but I don't see them using the system anymore than they already do. Others families might increase demand for specialists they don't currently have access to or can't afford, but how would the rationing overall change. They are already rationed out of the system, it might just give them a fairer shake at gaining access. Also, you might be able to decrease ER visits by increasing Health Maintenance visits catching things earlier and thus cutting overall costs. I do believe that there should be a penalty in fees for people who don't take care of themselves and a discount for those that make certain benchmarks for the age, height etc., overweight being the primary indicator for the penalty portion. Back to original question, if you really think about it Demand would largely be a wash, those 40,000,000 still need services, they get it now through other means like in the ER or through Charity. Demand for specific services might need to change and cardiologists might need to become GPs if what you say is correct. But overall demand should remain relatively flat. The big change in Demand will come from retiring Baby Boomers who generally are already insured and use a lot of services. As more retire, more will need services, but that has little to do with increasing coverage.

 

So if you cut fees paid, maybe those cardiologists will have to cut a couple of golf outings a year and do only one trip on their private Yacht, not 5....because they would actually have to work more often to make up the loss in salary.

[blzrul]

There will most certainly be rationing under the public health option, Medicare, and Medicaid. To think that the government won't do it, whereas insurance companies have been doing it to keep their own costs down, is sheer naivete.

We need to consider what "rationing" means. What about a guy who's 88 years old, has had a number of health problems, and "needs" a speenectomy to remove a cancer, which may (or may not) have spread. The surgery could kill him. Or it could give him another 6-8 months. Or less. And it's going to be expensive.

 

What do you do? If it's your dad or grandad, you want him to have the surgery. But is it a good use of taxpayers' dollars?

 

This is what happens today. And it will happen no matter what health care reforms are implemented.

 

What will, hopefully, change with reform? The decision will be made by the patient, the patient's family, and the medical team. NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[IDBillzFan]

What will, hopefully, change with reform? The decision will be made by the patient, the patient's family, and the medical team. NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Oh, sweet Jesus.

 

Y'know, I was just sitting here thinking....what would I give for a good laugh.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Oh, sweet Jesus.

 

Y'know, I was just sitting here thinking....what would I give for a good laugh.

It is amazing we get this for free. nozzelnuts is a world class entertainer.

[ThereIsNoDog]

I am not sure I buy the increase in demand argument. You would be increasing the number of people paying into the system - young people would actually start paying - but I don't see them using the system anymore than they already do. Others families might increase demand for specialists they don't currently have access to or can't afford, but how would the rationing overall change. They are already rationed out of the system, it might just give them a fairer shake at gaining access. Also, you might be able to decrease ER visits by increasing Health Maintenance visits catching things earlier and thus cutting overall costs. I do believe that there should be a penalty in fees for people who don't take care of themselves and a discount for those that make certain benchmarks for the age, height etc., overweight being the primary indicator for the penalty portion. Back to original question, if you really think about it Demand would largely be a wash, those 40,000,000 still need services, they get it now through other means like in the ER or through Charity. Demand for specific services might need to change and cardiologists might need to become GPs if what you say is correct. But overall demand should remain relatively flat. The big change in Demand will come from retiring Baby Boomers who generally are already insured and use a lot of services. As more retire, more will need services, but that has little to do with increasing coverage.

 

So if you cut fees paid, maybe those cardiologists will have to cut a couple of golf outings a year and do only one trip on their private Yacht, not 5....because they would actually have to work more often to make up the loss in salary.

You are assuming that the people that enter into the system will provide enough funding for what they, and especially the multitude of Baby Boomers as they age and no longer pay into the system, consume. And it's entirely likely that routine checkups will become mandatory, given the big push for preventative care. That will be a drain on the system, as the majority of people currently don't see their doctor regularly.

 

The problem is, no one knows exactly how this will work. But experiences from Canada and England show that socialized medicine isn't working. And no government program has ever cost what they've said it will cost, and you usually have to multiply by a factor of 3.

[Magox]

Oh, sweet Jesus.

 

Y'know, I was just sitting here thinking....what would I give for a good laugh.

I think she 'misread' the memo

[jjamie12]

I am not ... loss in salary.

I don't understand (which is not unusual). We're going to be adding 40 million (or so, depending on the day) people to the pool of folks who will be (using your own words) 'increasing their health maintenance visits'. And you just (seem to, anyway) wave your hands and say that cardiologists will become GP's.

 

I don't have time to formulate a whole lot of coherent thought around this right now, but, suffice to say, I don't find that line of reasoning very persuasive, to be honest. Here's one thought, though: For there to be a demand 'wash' around cardiology and health maintenance visits, don't you have to assume that the only people now seeing cardiologists are doing it because they didn't have insurance (and the corresponding health maintenance visits)? Otherwise, I think what you're saying is that giving health insurance (and the corresponding health maintenance visits) to 40 million people is going to necessarily change the behavior of the other 200 (or so) million people who DO have health insurance. And I don't think you're saying that, because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

In other words, I don't think we will need a transfer of cardiologists to GP's, we'll need an increase in doctors of all kinds, yes?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Is the report fictitious?

 

Why does FOX News not air Obama speeches?

[DC Tom]

Is the report fictitious?

 

Why does FOX News not air Obama speeches?

 

They usually do. I've seen them.

 

If they skipped one, it's probably because there was a high-speed car chase in CA or a missing white woman somewhere or something.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

You are assuming that the people that enter into the system will provide enough funding for what they, and especially the multitude of Baby Boomers as they age and no longer pay into the system, consume. And it's entirely likely that routine checkups will become mandatory, given the big push for preventative care. That will be a drain on the system, as the majority of people currently don't see their doctor regularly.

 

The problem is, no one knows exactly how this will work. But experiences from Canada and England show that socialized medicine isn't working. And no government program has ever cost what they've said it will cost, and you usually have to multiply by a factor of 3.

 

You have two inaccuracies. One the discussion was on increase in demand for services as a result of adding another insurance option because we would be adding 40 million in uninsured. I debated that this was inaccurate because even the uninsured receive services through charity or other options and the bulk of them are the young adults who are generally healthy and who don't use a lot of medical services to begin with nor would they if this option were available. The increase in demand is going to come from the elderly who have access to medicare and will demand more services. This however is going to happen no matter what insurance options are or not available and it is going to cost the tax payer one way or another. That being said the cut in cardiology reimbursement rates might force these doctors to serve more patients to make up the difference and I sarcastically said they might have to spend less time on the golf course or in their private yachts paid for be the tax payer.

 

Finally, I disagree, the Canadian model works great. If you have ever used it, you would know. Those who want specialized services might have to wait a little while if it is a non-emergency, but they all get services and pay very little. Their Emergency rooms are first rate and not clogged up by non-insured people needing maintenance services. I am not sure their model would work in the States but it works well for Canada and much better then our system does for us. As far as England goes, I do not have any knowledge how well or not so well their system works, but don't believe the rhetoric putting down the systems in either country. Such rhetoric is driven by US insurance companies and others who have a vested interesting in keeping us paying out the backside for services, denying claims and generally acting like Verizon with all their hidden fees.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I don't understand (which is not unusual). We're going to be adding 40 million (or so, depending on the day) people to the pool of folks who will be (using your own words) 'increasing their health maintenance visits'. And you just (seem to, anyway) wave your hands and say that cardiologists will become GP's.

 

I don't have time to formulate a whole lot of coherent thought around this right now, but, suffice to say, I don't find that line of reasoning very persuasive, to be honest. Here's one thought, though: For there to be a demand 'wash' around cardiology and health maintenance visits, don't you have to assume that the only people now seeing cardiologists are doing it because they didn't have insurance (and the corresponding health maintenance visits)? Otherwise, I think what you're saying is that giving health insurance (and the corresponding health maintenance visits) to 40 million people is going to necessarily change the behavior of the other 200 (or so) million people who DO have health insurance. And I don't think you're saying that, because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

In other words, I don't think we will need a transfer of cardiologists to GP's, we'll need an increase in doctors of all kinds, yes?

Yes we will need to increase doctors of all levels, but not because we are adding people to the insured, but because our population is aging and most of them are covered by medicare and are demanding more services. The uninsured are generally young adults and healthier and typically don't use much in the way of services. Kids are insured under the current system and destitute folks are covered by a myriad of current programs. So tell me how will their be an increase in demand for services. We are not adding to the current population as a result of increasing insurance coverage, therefore there will be no increase in demand as a result of providing another option, there will only be a way to better control costs and have those who do not pay into the system now to start paying something.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Why should they run it they don't like the ad? There are enough media outlets to voice otherwise. I keep on saying media today is much like media early on in American history... That is people ARE EXPECTED to take a side.

 

NEWSFLASH: The big 3 TV aren't the only shows in town anymore... And that is a good thing, back to our roots!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What will, hopefully, change with reform? The decision will be made by the patient, the patient's family, and the medical team. NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

 

OOOOOOOR, the decision could come from the gubmint health plan that's covering this poor, noble, old bastard.