The Wait After Reform

To pretend this legislation is geared toward helping people instead of geared toward (0.00 / 0)

bailing out the health care industrial complex is either naive or cynical to the extreme.

Are there some carrots for some people? Absolutely. Yet they come at an extremely high and unsustainable price.

The basic problem with health care in the US is that it is unaffordable.

Since this bill does nothing to address cost containment, it won't change or solve the basic problem of heath care in the US.

It will, however, help to make sure that we can never solve the basic problem of cost containment. This bill will enshrine the private insurance health industry as the official solution to coverage in the US.

It will move millions of children who are currently on SCHIP on to the rolls of the private insurance companies to be treated as sources of revenue for private corporations.

It will greatly increase the political power of the private insurance industry.

When the next economic crisis hits, and the health insurance industry can't pay our health care bills, we the tax payers will have to bail them out, since if we don't, we won't get care. Smart of us, eh?

This so-called "reform" is a Republican idea. It's Romney care, which is already failing because it doesn't contain costs.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

---

by: Steve W. @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 18:30:22 PM UTC

What cost containment are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)

Max's bill is actually better at long-term cost containment than the House bill. Cost containment is about bending the curve -- moving away from fee for service, stopping over-utilization, etc. -- not about one-time cost savings.

Single-payer alone isn't cost containment except in the sense that the IHS contains costs by not spending money after September. That ain't an ideal cost containment mechanism.

If you like cost containment, pound the pavement for it. I haven't seen a whole lot of rallies for increased scrutiny of health expenditures.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:06:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While Dennison's analysis of the 5 people is informative, (0.00 / 0)

I found his other column the same day, "An analysis of one family's health care coverage" to be the most telling piece.

Reading Dennison's reporting on health care over the past year or so, it has been hard to miss the fact that he is an ardent single payer supporter. And in this column he finally gets to come out and lay out the reasons. His son has gone to school in British Columbia, and he gets to compare the Canadian system with the American one:

As President Barack Obama and Baucus have said, many times, "If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it."

What Obama and Baucus don't say is that if you don't like the health insurance you have, you still have to keep it. You could dump it, I suppose, and shop for insurance on the individual market, but that would be much more expensive...

My son got his British Columbia health card last week. It's like a credit card. You go to a clinic or hospital, they swipe it, you see someone for your medical problem. No bills. No questions about insurance, how you'll pay, etc. No questions about which doctor is in "the network," because they all are. You're covered.

I asked the British Columbia Health Services Ministry in Victoria what would happen if my son was seriously injured, or if he was diagnosed in Canada with a serious disease, such as cancer or meningitis or diabetes. The answer: He's covered, at no additional cost to him or us, like any British Columbian citizen. They seemed almost amused at my questions, as though they were thinking, why would it be any other way?

If any of what I just described happened to me in Montana, I'd be making my co-payments, meeting my deductible, making sure the health care providers are in my insurer's "network," filling out paperwork to ensure everyone gets paid, and then, later on, navigating a maze of bills and insurance statements.

Now, I can already hear people saying, well, the quality and scope of care in Canada may not be as good as you'd get in the United States, and you might have to wait longer, or wait for a referral, or somehow have your choice restricted by government bureaucrats. You'd also probably pay higher taxes in British Columbia to help support the system.

These are legitimate criticisms and questions; nobody said the Canadian system is perfect - although I doubt most Canadians think they're getting or would tolerate substandard health care.

But, don't worry: A system like Canada's is not seriously being considered by Congress for the United States. Like the president, Baucus and others say, we get to keep what we have.

Damn Canadian socialists. There they go, ruining the free market capitalist system just so people can have unfettered access to what they have determined is a basic human right: health care.

Almost makes you want to move to Canada. Again.

Or become a Province.

---

by: JC @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 18:36:08 PM UTC

What Health Care Reform? (0.00 / 0)

This is the most screwed up piece of garbage I have ever seen.  It will drive up costs for just about everybody, and the insurance industry will get to charge even more for less.  This is a screwy bill as devised so far, and it will only get worse as it wends its way through the Senate.  I'm sure the health insurance execs. will be smiling all the way to the bank--once again.

We DO need single payer universal health care.  The costs would be far lower in the long run, and everyone would be served under such a plan.  Taxes would go up, and premiums and co-pays would cease to exist, and everyone would be covered.  'Nuff said.

---

by: Gypsy @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:06:53 AM UTC

It's one of those "Men Who Stare At Votes" kind of phrases. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Steve W. @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:15:36 AM UTC

this sorry bill has lost all of it's mo, matt..... (0.00 / 0)

it would be better to just start over in 2012 after the economy has improved. face it. jobs are the issue now. and this bill is such a turkey and has been delayed too long (thanks to max baucus) that no-one really supports it whole-heartedly. the word on the street is obama better drop this and work on the economy.

50 billion to free community health clinics would tide us over for the uninsured until we can really examine a canadian style health system that everyone would prefer in 2012.

properly funding community health clinics in the interim would actually do more for the underinsured too. this is dead, matt. trust my bear sense.  

---

by: problembear @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:51:47 AM UTC

Reform after the wait (0.00 / 0)

That's what I would call this scheme. Suppose you are 62, cannot get health insurance even at a price you cannot afford, and earn too much money for Medicaid. As I read the House's bill, nothing that would help you kicks in until 2013 -- at which point you'll be on Medicare (or whatever is left of Medicare). How is the national interest served by denying the 62-64 and too rich for Medicaid cohort immediate help?

********

Now, to the just announced Senate bill. In a two-pager available at http://thehill.com/images/stor... says this:

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact." Isn't this another way of saying that the Senate's bill blesses business as usual while calling it reform? It's like pouring perfume on a skunk and asking us to believe that nothing stinks.

---

by: jrconner @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:59:00 AM UTC

i don't have cable and I don't have satellite TV. i rarely have ever watched the (0.00 / 0)

Daily Show, since I live out in the country and I'm raising my kids. When they come home after school we do homework, we eat dinner, we do scouts, we do sports, I read a story, and they go to bed. I don't head off into town where I can see the Daily Show.

You accused me of plagiarism, ie  of stealing someone else's work and presenting it as my own work.

The fact that you say others are likely to believe your lie about me is quite a generous admission. I think you are correct, that indeed their is a high propensity that others would believe your malicious untruth about me, and view me with contempt, based on your false accusation. So we agree on that point.

What evidence do you have that I saw the Daily show on the 9th? Or anytime? Or do you not have any evidence, just a desire to discredit me?

i know a little bit about libel law. I studied up on it when I was owner, editor and publisher of The Northern Rockies Comic Gazette.

I know for instance, that the burden of proof is on the person who attempts to discredit another person through maliciously publishing damaging "facts" about a person. A person suing for libel isn't required to prove that they didn't do something. The person levying the charge or charges is required to prove the charges they made. You made the charge that I stole my work from the Daily Show. If you can prove that i in fact did watch the Daily Show and that I stole that joke, then it might help your case somewhat.

But i don't know what your theory is. Where are you claiming I saw the Daily Show? It wasn't at home because I don't have the comedy network. And I in fact didn't watch the Daily show on the 9th or since.

And I think I should be able to prove that. (even though i don't have to) I have witnesses for Monday as to where I was and what I was doing.

I look forward to seeing your proof that in order for me to  make the pun, "Men Who Stare At Votes" from "Men Who Stare at Goats" requires absolutely and positively  that I had stolen it from the Daily show.

You do realize that the movie, "The Men Who Stare At Goats" has been getting a lot of coverage. NPR has done some pieces on it. That's what I know about it, in fact. And Votes rhymes with Goats. Yeah.

Like I said, I don't have cable or satellite TV, so I don't often see the Daily Show. It's been a year probably or more since the last time I saw it.

I imagine there are people who watch it every night. You might be one of those people. That would explain your keen knowledge of libel law as well as your certainty that "everyone" watches The Daily Show.

---

by: Steve W. @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 02:08:06 AM UTC

So (0.00 / 0)

Are you going to sue me or not?  I have nothing to prove to you.  Do you read websites?  Have you visited any of the 85,000 that played off the Daily Show joke?  Can you prove anything I've said is false?  I think not.  I've called your bluff, asshole.  Lay your cards on the table.  Sue me.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 02:50:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, so now your theory is I stole it off a website? I thought I stole it from the show? Get your story straight, (0.00 / 0)

it keeps changing how i came into possession of a pun that switches the word "goats" with the word "votes." Except you are so dense, so tunnel visioned, that you are missing what actually happened. What happened was I made a pun, and a referential joke, based on a popular movie. I created that pun and referential joke at the time I posted it.

Apparently, someone else also thought of the same pun. But they didn't steal it from me, and I didn't steal it from them. We both spontaneously came up with the same pun.

i am going to take this to the next level, Wulfgar.

You have no right to smear my good name and you have no right to spread lies about me.

I haven't any idea what makes you think that you have that right.

Did your mom drop you on your head? Did you eat a lot of paint chips as a kid? What is the matter with you?

---

by: Steve W. @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 05:06:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Steve (0.00 / 0)

My "theory" is that you've lost any sense of reason and proportion.  The 85,000 websites riffing on the same joke wasn't spontaneous.  The vast majority of them got it the Daily Show, and the vast majority of them actually posted the video at Comedy Central.

The part you aren't getting, Steve, is that I don't care where you got the joke.  NO ONE is going to care where you got the joke, even if you thought of it your wee witty bitty sef.  What I do care about is that you attempted to intimidate me with a hollow threat of legal action over something that isn't actionable.  When your lawyer is done laughing at you, you might ask him if such a threat itself is actionable against you.  Don't be too surprised when he verifies that it is.  The difference between us, Steve, is that I have a sense of proportion and reason.  And your attempt to make a issue of something so pathetic and petty has probably done more harm to your "good name" than anything I could ever have written about you.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 17:28:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]