• commentary
  • TUESDAY JUNE 30 2009 9:30 AM

Democrats Blowing It On Health Care

It’s really quite interesting to watch the Democrats throw it all away. This time, they seem to think blowing the chance at decent health care reform will aid them in future elections. Or perhaps they have taken so much money from the health care industry that they don’t give a shit. Either way, it doesn’t matter. Fixing health care is the biggest problem facing our country. If we don’t do something drastic, it will completely destroy our economy in the years to come. As it is, we’re in bad shape. Democrats, specifically Senate Democrats, have decided to help the poor insurance industry out as much as possible. Es no bueno.

Most of the debate is over the dreaded “public option.” Oh, dear no. We can’t have a public option. That’s socialized medicine! Americans must be able to choose! And by that I mean they can’t choose a public option! They have to be able to choose between private monopolies! This is fucking America! We demand to be fucked over by private companies as much as possible!

And make no mistake about it; those against the “public option” want to continue with monopolies.

But the notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. And a study issued last month by a pro-reform group makes that strikingly clear.

The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country's insurance markets are defined as "highly concentrated," according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that's led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.



So, that's what the "free market" kids are fighting for. Monopolies. Yay!

A public option would guarantee the possibility of lower cost, reliable coverage. It will bring cost control by reforming how we pay for medical care. It will create competition between private insurers that simply does not exist today. It will also force private insurers to perform better, something they are not doing today.

To those who say the public option would drive the private companies out of business; I thought everything government did sucked? Is government bad or highly efficient? Please stick to one talking point, no matter the subject. Secondly, the private insurance companies have had their chance and to say they fucked it up would be an understatement. They deserve no protection. I have no interest in keeping pedophiles in business, either. Their time has come and gone. They could have kept costs lower, kept people from dying, insured anyone with preconditions, but they decided to go for the biggest profits possible and now they are on the deserving end of what’s coming. They only compete to insure the well and reject the sick. Then they employ adjusters to get the company out of paying for health care services when the well become sick. Welcome to the world of failure. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it.

If any of you loud mouthed, utopian, not living in the real world Libertarians bring up regulation, feel free to explain the exact regulation that makes health care so expensive. If you can’t detail these so called regulations, shut your face and stick your broad stroke arguments up your ass. Your simplicity has grown tiresome. This current debate is for adults and what you want will never be, so stay out of it or act like an adult and accept that what you want ain’t going to happen.

As far as the public plan, Democrats are right now working on a way to water it down until it is completely ineffective. Senator Jay Rockefeller, who is a son of a bitch because of his FISA legislation, has come up with a good public health care plan. His plan would partner a public plan with Medicare for more bargaining power and access to provider networks. According the non-partisan Lewin Group and the Commonwealth Foundation, Rockefeller’s plan would drop premiums 20 to 30 percent. Can’t have that, now can we?

Rockefeller’s plan would force private insurance companies to be more honest. They would have to cut their bullshit administrative costs and fire quite a few of those adjusters whose job is to find ways to not pay for care. Right now, you have no choice. You can choose between one horrible private insurance company or another. There really isn’t much difference. The idea is to force them to become insurers instead of profiteers.

Other Democrats are working on plans that would do almost nothing. Senator Chuck Schumer has a “level playing field” public plan that won’t save much at all. It will just create a plan that will allow private companies to dump old, sick and high-risk patients onto the public plan. This is considered a compromise. It will be awesome because by doing it halfway, they will create exactly what the right wing claims will happen. It will be a terribly ineffective, expensive plan. It would not use low rates that Medicare sets or use taxpayer subsidies. It wouldn’t force its way into networks. It would just be like any other insurer, except for the fact that it would be a dumping ground for private insurers to unload their expensive patients. It’s one of those genius “Democrats compromise and create a pile of shit plans.”

Finally, there’s Ben Nelson’s “Trigger Plan.” You know it’s good because Nelson has taken millions and millions of dollars from insurance companies. The Trigger Plan would be like a big, invisible, scary fist looming over the insurance industry. If the private market didn’t offer cost control or enough options, the public plan would come into existence - but it would be at the state level. It’s a regional Trigger. Some states might have a public plan and others would not. It’s basically set up as a way for private companies to game the system. Ben Nelson doesn’t seem to realize the trigger should have been pulled 8 years ago. If he wants to set the threshold where costs are now, it’s a big lose. Go Blue Dogs!

Those are the public plan options. Now which one do you think Democrats in the Senate will choose? I’d bet big money on the “Level playing field” plan because it doesn’t actually threaten the private insurance market. It actually helps them in their quest to be the biggest douche bags on Earth.

Prepare for failure.

FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday and Friday for more from FearTheReaper You may also enjoy his blog, Stop All Monsters.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

 ... 29

Next

Comments
SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUL 14, 2009 02:49 PM

Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

JUL 14, 2009 03:41 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

JUL 14, 2009 03:45 PM

mydogfarted said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"



It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.

sick

sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

JUL 14, 2009 03:56 PM

Coyotemike said:

mydogfarted said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"



It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.



And the government isn't supplying anything other than an insurance plan. They aren't providing any other services. They aren't providing the actual care. They aren't allocating funds to local governments to provide health care. There aren't any resources to reallocate.

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUL 14, 2009 04:39 PM

Coyotemike said:

mydogfarted said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"



It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.



Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

JUL 14, 2009 04:48 PM

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:

mydogfarted said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"



It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.



Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?



Please explain how that situation would come up. Use the REAL proposed health plan, not the made-up monster of talk radio.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUL 14, 2009 04:54 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?



Or he can charge above the 'scheduled fee' which is what they are allowed to do here in Oz with Medicare. There is nothing in the current proposals about trying to impose national price controls on doctors or medical operators as i suspect you know full well.

So what happens is that doctors servings in wealthier areas charge more and those serving in poorer areas charge less.

Why do some doctors choose to work in poorer areas i hear you ask? Well some do so out of altruism (i.e. they became doctors to help people not become wealthy), some do so because they aren't very good doctors (which sucks for the poor, but then no one ever said being poor was a great thing and some medical care is better than none) and some do so because the poor are a vast market and even at the scheduled fee you can make a good living if you can achieve economies of scale (i.e. you chain doc in a box operation)

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUL 14, 2009 04:57 PM

Coyotemike said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:

mydogfarted said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"



It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.



Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?



Please explain how that situation would come up. Use the REAL proposed health plan, not the made-up monster of talk radio.



Well, I'm basing it off of someone else's personal experience.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 14, 2009 05:08 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?



There are already doctors who don't take public insurance. Doctors don't have to accept Medicare. But most of them do.

This is despite the fact that Medicare pays less. If I had to guess, I'd say that (a) doctors would rather get paid than not get paid, and (b) doctors aren't used car salesmen. They went into medicine to help people, and Medicare means that many of their patients can afford that help.

Some doctors, of course, don't care about the nobility of their profession, and they typically move to Beverly Hills and earn their living gluing famous faces onto randoms who can pay out of pocket.

Also, I don't know if you've ever run a professional services business, but I would hazard a guess that from a purely business standpoint, it's better for doctors to have long-term patients who can afford medical services than it is for them to earn as much money as possible per hour but not have very many patients who can afford regular visits and treatment. I know plenty of people who pass on checkups or getting something looked at, purely because their insurance either makes it too expensive or difficult. That translates to lost billable hours for doctors.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 14, 2009 05:09 PM

gfvella said:
Or he can charge above the 'scheduled fee' which is what they are allowed to do here in Oz with Medicare.



Even car repair places in the US do the same thing. They have one rate for out of pocket, and another rate for insurance.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUL 14, 2009 05:15 PM

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:

mydogfarted said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"



It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.



Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?



Please explain how that situation would come up. Use the REAL proposed health plan, not the made-up monster of talk radio.



Well, I'm basing it off of someone else's personal experience.



This is because you have too many systems and too many layers of bureaucracy. Done properly a national scheme will actually make everything easier.

The national medical insurance scheme here is Oz is called Medicare; this has differing levels of cover for citizens, pensioners, veterans etc. All handled by the same system.

We have a national medical payments system that operates over the EFTPOS network for both medicare and all the health insurance firms. I go to the doctor they ask for my medicare card they swipe it through the EFTPOS terminal and it deducts the money from the government to the health care provider. If the charge is above the schedule fee (or not covered) then they swipe my health insurance card and it deducts money from the health insurer to the health care provider. If there is still money left to pay i put that in.

I haven't had to fill out any paperwork for medical care for years, unless I have forgotten to take the necessary cards with me. I have mates who are doctors and they tell me that their reporting requirements under Medicare can all be handled automatically by all the various practice management programs they use.

This is not to say that the paperwork isn't a pain; bureaucracy always is. However; the issue in the US now is the plethora of systems. You need to have just one national system rather than the rats nest of state, federal and individual corporate systems.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUL 14, 2009 05:18 PM

s5 said:

gfvella said:
Or he can charge above the 'scheduled fee' which is what they are allowed to do here in Oz with Medicare.



Even car repair places in the US do the same thing. They have one rate for out of pocket, and another rate for insurance.



Given how closely involved they are with so many aspects of life and how clearly they manipulate those aspects of life to their own benefit i wonder why Sarge isn't as concerned about insurance companies as he is about the government?

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

JUL 14, 2009 05:49 PM

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:

mydogfarted said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Just out of curiousity, with this whole public plan, what's to stop the next George W. Bush from reallocating doctors/funds/resources to the districts that voted for him?


How do you reallocate doctors?
"I'm sorry Dr. Smith... we're moving you to Topeka tomorrow"



It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.



Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?



Please explain how that situation would come up. Use the REAL proposed health plan, not the made-up monster of talk radio.



Well, I'm basing it off of someone else's personal experience.



Dr. Helen is mostly talking about being frustrated because she took too much on her own shoulders. It was her choice. She could have worked with a practice and had a staff, but she didn't. Which makes it her own problem.

But don't you think, just maybe, if everybody is using the same insurance, that would simplify things for those who choose to do their own paperwork? And isn't it possible that they are trying to fix some of the problems that have haunted Medicare?

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUL 14, 2009 06:32 PM

Coyotemike said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Coyotemike said:
It's just another example of the willful ignorance of those opposed to this type of healthcare.

We need to spell it out in small words:

The doctors would NOT be government employees.
The government would not be telling the doctors what they can or can't do.
Patients will be able to choose their own doctor.



Ah, so if a Doctor feels he might be under-compensenated by "the public option", he'll be free not to accept that insurance?



Please explain how that situation would come up. Use the REAL proposed health plan, not the made-up monster of talk radio.



Well, I'm basing it off of someone else's personal experience.



Dr. Helen is mostly talking about being frustrated because she took too much on her own shoulders. It was her choice. She could have worked with a practice and had a staff, but she didn't. Which makes it her own problem.

But don't you think, just maybe, if everybody is using the same insurance, that would simplify things for those who choose to do their own paperwork? And isn't it possible that they are trying to fix some of the problems that have haunted Medicare?



It's possible. Of course it's possible I could shit gold bricks. It's far more likely, however, that the problems haunting Medicare will be propagated to public insurance. If you have reason to believe otherwise, then by all means let's hear it.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

JUL 14, 2009 06:36 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
It's possible. Of course it's possible I could shit gold bricks. It's far more likely, however, that the problems haunting Medicare will be propagated to public insurance. If you have reason to believe otherwise, then by all means let's hear it.



You brought up the possibility. It is up to you to prove that the problems within Medicare will be propagated to public insurance.

But, since you asked, the simple fact that the problems within Medicare ARE so well known makes me think that they might use this opportunity to fine tune things to eliminate problems, instead of blindly doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

 ... 29

Next