House Democrat Health Plan

[Alceste]

Depends on who you ask. Personally, from what I know about the current healthcare system, we should be even further down the list, making the innaccuracy of the WHO assessment work in favor of access to healthcare reform .

Eh, what the heck? No, I'm not Canadian, I've stated in other threads that I live in the Bible Belt, and in Missouri, which is in America, not Canada, last I checked .
And this Sunday morning, I'll be moving to a college which is still in Missouri .

Oh, whoops - I had you mixed up with Contentus Maximus from your Reagan thread. Sorry about that.

Hard to keep it all straight! You people all look the same to me. Just little black letters on a little grey screen.

Anyway, book recommendation interlude: Trust Us, We're Experts.

(BTW, I realize that the Centre for Media and Democracy, like the Cato Institute, serves an ideological agenda. "CMD's mission is to promote transparency and an informed debate by exposing corporate spin and government propaganda and by engaging the public in collaborative, fair and accurate reporting." Nevertheless, their books are fact-based and informative. Which makes a lot of sense, since the ideological agenda in question is simply that people should be aware of facts in addition to Corporate PR.)

 

[T-Dawg]

Hard to keep it all straight! You people all look the same to me. Just little black letters on a little grey screen.

And avatars. I usually recognize people I don't know too well by their avatars. Earlier today and before I was the guy with the evil-looking smiley, and today I have an ATS logo as my avatar .

Anyway, book recommendation interlude: Trust Us, We're Experts.

Holy crap, I need to get that book. =O

 

[Alceste]

And avatars. I usually recognize people I don't know too well by their avatars. Earlier today and before I was the guy with the evil-looking smiley, and today I have an ATS logo as my avatar .

Holy crap, I need to get that book. =O

You do! Everybody does!

They have quite a few books out. They actually make for very enjoyable reading. Witty, clear, engaging, fascinating and quite a lot more upbeat and positive than you would expect from a pair of professional media critics. These guys made me see "non-fiction" in a whole new light. (Well, maybe with a little help from Stephen Jay Gould and Bill Bryson).

 

[jamaesi]

Mindless is a bit harsh. I believe you're entitled to health care based on what you told me. You seriously need a disability advocate.

I know what it costs for a MRI Jamaesi. I have had 15 of them in my life time. I also know how much GE and Toshiba charge to rent those machines each month. I know the cost of maintenance and calibrations fees. My company has built and installed this kind of equipment.

The MRI uses magnetism, so technically the person who gives you the test may be a radiologist, but that would be a coincidence. The CT machine uses radiation, not the MRI.

But what do I know, I'm mindlessly rambling on.

Some people slip though the cracks of any system. Those people who genuinely need help and are not receiving it should receive charity. But Liberals don't believe in charity do they?

Mindless is a polite way to put it. How many times do I have to tell you that I have contacted lawyers. I don't have a case. Autodidact is telling you the same thing and it's their job.

I'm genuinely surprised that you've had 15 MRIs and have built, installed, and maintained the machines and still don't know they're part of radiology and use radio frequencies. Radiologists read MRIs, they don't haul in Mr. Random Joe off the street to do that job.

I also I had no idea I don't believe in charities? I wonder what the hell I'm doing when I spend the precious few moments where I can actually function and move around volunteering at one in my town. I don't have any money to give, but I can do what I can.

If conservatives "believe" in charity, where's the conservative one that's going to pay for all the tests and treatments I need so I can get disability and medicaid and pay for that lawyer I'm going to probably need? You gonna put your money where your mouth is? Will you personally pay for them cause you're a conservative? I can't get anything done without recent documentation of my incurable and degenerative conditions that haven't gone away since my previous documentation of them.

So you accept that s/he doesn't have access to health care, but you choose to ignore the fact that s/he's already had lawyers and advocates and assessments - the whole nine yards. This was meticulously described in a long and detailed post and confirmed by Auto, an actual lawyer who has advocated for people in that position.

And you're surprised that s/he's a little stroppy and irritable with you?

I'm surprised you're surprised. You are being very irritating. Surely you can see that. You claimed that the US looks after the disabled, s/he demonstrated more than adequately for any sane person that it certainly doesn't look after him/her * and you keep banging on that she must OF COURSE have access to health care, s/he just hasn't tried this thing, or that thing, or whatever - all of which s/he's tried.

* (and s/he is clearly disabled - my dad was just off work for 6 months and bedridden with back pains. He couldn't make it up the stairs, let alone go to work. The difference is that he has hassle-free access to free health care because he is Canadian, and saw a multitude of doctors and specialists during this time. At least one a week, not to mention 3 emergency room visits. This unfortunate period only cost him a slight reduction in pay during his period of disability.)

Stories like that one are heartbreaking. Truly. I wish s/he'd been born in Canada. S/he would be so, so much better off. Can you really compare that story to the stories your side bandies about where certain Canadians might have to wait a few months for a hip replacement - which they then get for free?

You can refer to me with feminine pronouns if you wish, my sex is female, my gender is a bit more ambivalent.

Not only that, I have to repeat how many times that yeah, I've already tried that...

And I do wish I had been born in Canada or any other country that cares about all its citizens, including the cripples.




I guess I'm off to pull on my bootstraps harder cause apparently I'm just not doing it right since I don't magically have health care even though I'm disabled.

 

[Alceste]

If conservatives "believe" in charity, where's the conservative one that's going to pay for all the tests and treatments I need so I can get disability and medicaid and pay for that lawyer I'm going to probably need? You gonna put your money where your mouth is? Will you personally pay for them cause you're a conservative? I can't get anything done without recent documentation of my incurable and degenerative conditions that haven't gone away since my previous documentation of them.

I sure would if I could. Unfortunately, you don't get as rich as Rick is by giving all your money away. I'm pretty broke. I just wired a third of my net worth to a (hard-working) friend who has run out of money for rent and food for the month.

I could suggest, though, that you might want to have a look at the price of private treatment in Canada. Maybe it is cheaper. I just paid out of pocket for some X-rays, a doctor visit and a whole bunch of tests for a non-Canadian friend and it all came in under $200 (Canadian). Also, prescription medicine is definitely cheaper here.

Here's an MRI price list from a Vancouver outfit.
Vancouver MRI Clinic - Canadian Magnetic Imaging

I see they'll do a spine MRI for $895, whereas the average US price is a couple thousand. (MRI Cost and Pricing Information).

If you have to pay out of pocket anyway, you might as well get half price.

And I do wish I had been born in Canada or any other country that cares about all its citizens, including the cripples.

Especially the "cripples" (and the elderly, and the psychotic, and the terminally ill, etc). People who are physically and mentally capable of earning an income can care for themselves, for the most part.

I guess I'm off to pull on my bootstraps harder cause apparently I'm just not doing it right since I don't magically have health care even though I'm disabled.

Maybe there is a charity somewhere that pulls on your bootstraps for you if you are physically unable to bend at the waist. Rick? What about it?

 

[Alceste]

You can refer to me with feminine pronouns if you wish, my sex is female, my gender is a bit more ambivalent.

Heh - BTW, I wrote that whole post using "she" first without thinking about it. I was about to hit "post" when I was suddenly overcome with doubt, so I went back to change all the pronouns. I hadn't even noticed your non-specified gender icon at the time. How funny is that?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The current right-wing talking point is that it's too complicated, even though they're the ones who asked for the complication.

Exactly, and their talking-point has always been that Medicare/Medicaid don't help enough people, even though they're the ones who limited and constrained them in order to avoid anything like public insurance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One observation.... Rev. Rick's and Kathryn's disbelief (bless their hearts) about jamaesi's situation is quite interesting. I don't know if you two earn above- or below-average salaries, but in my experience, people on the higher-end of the wealth spectrum often have a distorted view of reality (as we all do, of course). They think America has the greatest health care in the world, everyone who really needs care gets it, etc. because in their experience , and the experience of their social group, all these things are true. And therefore they simply don't believe the stuff that goes on at the other end of the wealth spectrum is actually true.

 

[Alceste]

One observation.... Rev. Rick's and Kathryn's disbelief (bless their hearts) about jamaesi's situation is quite interesting. I don't know if you two earn above- or below-average salaries, but in my experience, people on the higher-end of the wealth spectrum often have a distorted view of reality (as we all do, of course). They think America has the greatest health care in the world, everyone who really needs care gets it, etc. because in their experience , and the experience of their social group, all these things are true. And therefore they simply don't believe the stuff that goes on at the other end of the wealth spectrum is actually true.

It certainly doesn't help matters that there is an army of deceitful, unscrupulous free market propagandists with virtually unlimited resources stepping in to reassure them at every turn that their false perceptions are correct.

 

[twinmama]

About disbelief - those who read my post about family who are forced to live under in poverty in order to get help for their seriously sick child. They have been quite private about it until now but with all this talk now has made them step forward. They wrote their story and now media has contacted them. If and when their story gets out I will let you know.

 

[Copernicus]

It certainly doesn't help matters that there is an army of deceitful, unscrupulous free market propagandists with virtually unlimited resources stepping in to reassure them at every turn that their false perceptions are correct.

It is worth watching this interview that Jon Stewart did of Betsy McCaughey, the conservative health insurance industry advocate who is credited with having started the whole "death panel" canard. She did not use that term. As Jon Stewart pointed out, that was how what she said was "translated into Alaskan". As usual, his interviews end up being far more interesting and insightful than those that are done by real media journalists. McCaughey brought a version of the health bill with her and made a fool of herself trying to explain the convoluted logic by which she ended up concluding that the bill would cause harm to old people. Apparently, Stewart had done his homework on both her and the bill, so he wasn't taking any guff from her. I thought that the best part came at the end (in the part that wasn't televised), where she tried to explain her alternative plan to help insure people. Stewart pointed out that she was essentially proposing to give people a $2,000 subsidy on policies that now average $5,000. He asked her where they were supposed to get the extra $3000.

 

[Alceste]

It is worth watching this interview that Jon Stewart did of Betsy McCaughey, the conservative health insurance industry advocate who is credited with having started the whole "death panel" canard. She did not use that term. As Jon Stewart pointed out, that was how what she said was "translated into Alaskan". As usual, his interviews end up being far more interesting and insightful than those that are done by real media journalists. McCaughey brought a version of the health bill with her and made a fool of herself trying to explain the convoluted logic by which she ended up concluding that the bill would cause harm to old people. Apparently, Stewart had done his homework on both her and the bill, so he wasn't taking any guff from her. I thought that the best part came at the end (in the part that wasn't televised), where she tried to explain her alternative plan to help insure people. Stewart pointed out that she was essentially proposing to give people a $2,000 subsidy on policies that now average $5,000. He asked her where they were supposed to get the extra $3000.

Hm - can't view that link in Canada. It might be recorded downstairs on one of them fancy newfangled digital TV-taping, commercial-skipping gadgets.

 

[T-Dawg]

It might be recorded downstairs on one of them fancy newfangled digital TV-taping, commercial-skipping gadgets.

Haha, those things will be the death of television. Television exists solely for the purpose of commercials - companies pay TV shows to put commercials in between their shows, and that's where TV shows get their money. Once everyone gets this gadget that can record shows and skip the commercials, TV commercials will become worthless, and companies will cut their funding to TV shows . At this point, both the major parties will probably collapse, since TV propaganda is the only thing keeping them alive XD.

 

[Alceste]

Haha, those things will be the death of television. Television exists solely for the purpose of commercials - companies pay TV shows to put commercials in between their shows, and that's where TV shows get their money. Once everyone gets this gadget that can record shows and skip the commercials, TV commercials will become worthless, and companies will cut their funding to TV shows . At this point, both the major parties will probably collapse, since TV propaganda is the only thing keeping them alive XD.

I live in hope.

 

[Autodidact]

I really hope you're reading my posts closely enough to realize that I am not claiming that the Democrats are the only dunderheads and liars out there. I am not a Republican. I equally disdain most bureaucrats - and have not been defending any of them from either party in this debate.

But I am explicitly claiming that the ones who either haven't read the bills, or are lying about them, are Republicans. The Democrats are telling the truth about what's in the bill, so either they've read it or done whatever they need to do to understand it. Grassley is just one example of a Republican who either doesn't know, or is lying about, what's being proposed.

Would anyone like me to take the time to document the lies the Republicans are telling about this bill?

I ask again: If the proposal were really bad, would they need to lie to you to get you to oppose it?

One of the things they're lying to you about is that it's so complex that you can't understand it. Baloney. If you like, I'll explain it in less than 500 words.

 

[T-Dawg]

If you like, I'll explain it in less than 500 words.

Do so, our representatives sure won't do it for us .

You know, I just thought of something... do WE actually have a say in this? I thought the Congressmen (who are of course controlled by the big corporations) made all the legislative decisions without our permission these days.

 

[Autodidact]

Do so, our representatives sure won't do it for us .

You know, I just thought of something... do WE actually have a say in this? I thought the Congressmen (who are of course controlled by the big corporations) made all the legislative decisions without our permission these days.

If they vote for what their constituents oppose, how long do you think they'll remain your Congressman?

 

[Autodidact]

Do so, our representatives sure won't do it for us .

You know, I just thought of something... do WE actually have a say in this? I thought the Congressmen (who are of course controlled by the big corporations) made all the legislative decisions without our permission these days.

HR 3200:

• Requires people (with exceptions) to have health care coverage.
• Subsidizes health insurance premiums up to 400% of federal poverty level.
• Requires employers (withpayrolls >$250,000)to offer health insurance.
• Provides a tax credit for smaller employers who offer health insurance.
• Expands Medicaid.
• Creates an insurance exchange, or pool for people to buy their health insurance from.
• Included a "public option," a government run program, as one choice in the exchange.
• Sets a minimum benefit package.
• Prohibits insurance companies from denying people based on pre-existing conditions.
• Cuts costs through a variety of tools.
• Funds preventive, science-based medical research, primarily to reduce overall costs.
• Makes some improvements to Medicare.
• Financed primarily through savings in Medicare and Medicaid, a surcharge on high-income families.

Questions?

 

[Copernicus]

If they vote for what their constituents oppose, how long do you think they'll remain your Congressman?

Ideally, such representatives would be voted out of office. The reality is that people have conflicting desires. They want government services, but they also want to pay little or no taxes to support those services. Democrats get dinged for proposing new services and programs that cost taxpayers more money, even when the voters elect them to pass those programs. Republicans get dinged for trying to cut back desirable services and programs in order to justify lower taxes. In general, the public wants government-guaranteed health services that do not cost them anything. Politicians feel that they have to promise both increased government services and no new taxes in order to deliver on what they were elected to deliver. That is why the moderate Republicans and "blue dog" Democrats seem to be the chief architects of all the proposals. They are the ones most willing to promise the impossible--change that doesn't change anything.

As the French say: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" "The more it changes, the more it stays the same."

 

[T-Dawg]

Requires people (with exceptions) to have health care coverage.

What if they can't afford it?

Requires employers (withpayrolls >$250,000)to offer health insurance.

Any particular amount they have to provide? You gotta tell them to make it at at least a certain level, or else they'll be able to do something ridiculous, like pay only ten dollars out of the total cost of a several-thousand dollar operation.

Provides a tax credit for smaller employers who offer health insurance.

Is the tax credit relevant to the amount of insurance they provide?

Cuts costs through a variety of tools.

How?

Funds preventive, science-based medical research, primarily to reduce overall costs.

If you're paying the scientist, won't his results be based off the money rather than genuine science? In other words, is there a system that stops scientists from getting paid to keep inventing the wheel over and over again?

Also, where did the rumors about death pannels and eugenics come from?