Get off your lazy goon-ass and help pass healthcare reform

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > LF Goldmine > Get off your lazy goon-ass and help pass healthcare reform

«‹›2 »

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Thanks for this, Willa.

Would it be more effective if I physically went to my Senators' home offices, or sent a snail-mail letter to them in Washington?

# ¿ May 4, 2009 00:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:04

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

some more hot coals for your seat if you live in a state with a centrist dem senator; this was a comment within nyceve's dk diary:

oh god damnit you've got to be kidding

# ¿ May 4, 2009 05:56

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Dogless Liberal posted:

Did he say how many centrist Democrats?

yeah I guess that's the question, because when I think of "centrist democrats," I think of everyone but the 16 who signed the health care letter + feingold. but if it's just arlen specter and fuckface nelson and a couple of others then it might be ok

# ¿ May 4, 2009 06:13

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

I was finally able to listen to the Dean conference call. I'm a little confused about subsidizing private insurance plans. So, the government would basically pay the cost of poor peoples' private insurance (if they chose to use it)? If private insurance is so much more expensive, why would we want to do that (rather than sort-of force them into the better, more efficient public plan)?

# ¿ May 5, 2009 06:51

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

Obama's always been in favor of tax subsidies to purchase insurance; that was the mainstay of his healthcare platform during the primaries last year (as opposed to the general), and why I said that his and McCain's plans weren't all that different, in some respects.

What Dean wants, and was alluding to, is for the reform plan to include tax subsidies toward both private *and* public insurance if you couldn't afford it, which is how we'd get universal coverage. People making up to a certain amount over the poverty level would be covered by the public plan on the government's dime, as they are now under Medicaid, while others would get tax subsidies to purchase public or privat plans, which subsidies would phased out at higher incomes.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but roughly how much would it cost to enroll in the public plan, then, for someone who makes enough money for it not to be subsidized?

And, if I'm reading you right, someone in, say, the middle class would have it partially subsidized on some sort of scale depending on income/household?

# ¿ May 5, 2009 07:16

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

many would retain their jobs with the still-existing insurance companies, many would be absorbed into the new government plan, AND i THINK that there was a provision in one of the bills that would fund retraining programs IIRC (take it away Willa)

# ¿ May 5, 2009 16:10

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Chairman-Mao posted:

just popping in to say that having worked on the hill i can say with a great deal of certainty that writing or calling your senator does literally jack poo poo

so then what should we do instead?

----------------------------------------

Schumer Offers Middle Ground on Health Care (NYT)

quote:

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, asked Mr. Schumer to seek a solution. In his response, Mr. Schumer set forth these principles:

�The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.

�The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.

�The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.

�To prevent the government from serving as both �player and umpire,� the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market.

In addition, Mr. Schumer said, the public plan should be required to establish a reserve fund, just as private insurers must maintain reserves for the payment of anticipated claims. And he said the public plan should be required to provide the same minimum benefits as private insurers.

does this water it down too much to make it worthless?

# ¿ May 5, 2009 17:09

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

How do you counteract claims like Nelson makes, that "Medicare is on its way to insolvency"?

# ¿ May 5, 2009 18:20

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

I wrote and called Sherrod Brown (to tell him not to back down or give into Schumer's proposal) and my rep, Mary-Jo Kilroy (who seems to just back some vague UHC plan), so idk, I hope that helped somewhat. Neither said much of anything. The staffer I talked to for Kilroy said he "didn't know what she supported" so lol.

I guess I'll write Baucus and Voinovich next, then I'll start sending out letters to the editor.

(and then I'll form a lobbying group har har)

# ¿ May 5, 2009 21:50

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

this side wants everyone to have affordable health care, but this side wants to gouge everyone and deny coverage

maybe the answer is...

~*somewhere in the middle*~

# ¿ May 6, 2009 00:20

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Konstantin posted:

Hopefully Obama had some balls on this, and doesn't sign whatever Congress puts on his desk. I'd rather he veto a 'mandatory private insurance' bill rather than sign it, and him saying 'I'll veto anything that does not include public option' might be what is needed to put the Dems into line. Then again, that would require a Democrat to have a spine, so we all know it's not going to happen.

My inclination now is that we're going to get a public option, but it's going to be terrible ala Schumer's proposal above

# ¿ May 6, 2009 16:14

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Glumwheels posted:

i've already come to the conclusion you can't beat the banks or the insurance companies so i'm just going to sit here and continue playing video games

thanks for letting us know!

# ¿ May 6, 2009 17:02

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Petey posted:

you are correct, it makes no sense, it is a way to make the public option look bad

more than that, it's a way to make the public option literally bad

# ¿ May 7, 2009 01:18

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

I have a question, I think it might be dumb:

It seems like I'm reading that the US government spends more on health care than other countries with single-payer or public options. How? Through Medicare/Medicaid spending? (And, if so, why are those programs so much more inefficient than other public options?)

I know there are other factors, but I don't know what they are or how they work. And I'm afraid I may be mixing up figures somehow. Basically: why are more government dollars spent on health care in the US if its mostly privatized?

# ¿ May 7, 2009 05:57

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Finktron posted:

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

"The reasons for the especially high cost of health care in the U.S. can be contributed to a number of factors, ranging from the rising costs of medical technology and prescription drugs to the high administrative costs arising from a complex multipayer system in the U.S. For example, it has been estimated that between 19.3 and 24.1 percent of the total dollars spent on health care in the U.S. is spent simply on administrative costs."

For-profit hospitals also sport higher administrative costs than non-profit and public hospitals: 34 percent at for-profit hospitals, 24.5 at non profit and 22.9 at public ones.

(thee bolded fact is derived from the New England Journal of Medicine in 1991 and the American Medical Student Association 2001, in case you didn't want to bother with a pdf link; it also states that Canada administrative cost percentage is around half of what the U.S. pays, coming in at 8.4 to 11.1 percent)

Okay, but what does that have to do with the amount that the government itself spends? Like, of course there are increased administrative costs when there are multiple payers, but I'm talking about the US government itself.

I feel like I'm being dense. Let me try to explain another way:

Gul Banana's thread posted:

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

But in a privatized system, why would we actually be paying more in taxes? What is that money used for? Does it just go to Medicare/Medicaid? If so, why does it cost so much?

# ¿ May 7, 2009 06:39

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

wow, ed schultz did a terrific job framing the debate over single-payer being included in healthcare discussions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbu7mgnpEO8

I got all excited when Stabenow started talking toward the end of the piece, but then she just kinda lapsed into typical dem-speak.

Hey Willa, what's your take on my questions above?

# ¿ May 8, 2009 02:17

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

You're probably right when you mention Medicare and Medicaid (and don't forget the VA system, which pays providers set salaries and runs hospitals across the U.S., nor the military healthcare system and TriCare), but maybe it also includes our subsidies to federal workers (including Congress and the administration), as well as subsidies to hospitals and providers for indigent care?

I don't know offhand what the breakdown of federal expenditures toward healthcare is, but it'd be interesting to see. I'll try to do some searches and let you know if I find anything.

Thanks, I tried looking but I was pretty unsuccessful.

One article I found mentioned that hospitals are increasingly shifting some of the burden for people who cannot pay for emergency treatment from "charity funds" to increased charges to insurance companies and the government, which of course results in higher premiums and increased government spending on health care. But that's only a piece of the puzzle.

# ¿ May 8, 2009 02:35

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

HealthJustice.org tells me to call 1-800-578-4171 and press 0 for the White House or 1 for Sen. Baucus.

Also, keep faxing.

Check it out.

I'm writing like Ralph Nader.

# ¿ May 8, 2009 05:18

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Well I'm glad that Schumer's proposal was just a great first step in the complete dismantling of progress.

# ¿ May 8, 2009 21:57

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

oh thanks for the explanation cheap sunglasses

# ¿ May 8, 2009 22:09

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Public coverage methods on table

quote:

WASHINGTON -- Senators are considering three designs for a new government health-insurance plan that middle-income Americans could buy into for the first time, congressional officials said yesterday.

Officials familiar with the proposals said senators plan to debate them in a closed meeting next week. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the plans have not been released.

The three approaches being discussed are:

� Create a plan that resembles Medicare and is administered by the federal Health and Human Services Department.

� Adopt a Medicare-like plan, but pick an outside party to run it. That way, government officials would not directly control the day-to-day operations.

� Leave it to each state to set up a public insurance plan for its residents.

Creating a public plan is one of the most contentious ideas in the debate over how to overhaul the health-care system to cover the uninsured and try to restrain costs.

President Barack Obama and many Democrats say a government option would help to keep the private-insurance industry honest.

However, insurers fear they would be driven out of business. And Republicans call a public plan a deal breaker, dashing hopes for bipartisan legislation for overhauling the health-insurance system. Employer groups also are opposed.

Many key details of the proposals would have to be fleshed out. Among them is whether the public plan would be open to everyone, or limited to small businesses and individuals buying coverage on their own.

Also, would the plan reimburse medical providers at discounted Medicare rates or the higher fees that private insurers pay? And would it be financed by tax dollars, or entirely from premiums?

The Senate Finance Committee will consider the proposals late next week. Committee leaders want to bring a bill to the Senate floor this summer.

Citing surveys that show that most seniors are happy with Medicare, Democrats say they think that a public plan would be a political winner. But Republicans counter that it would be a step toward a government-run system in which medical services sooner or later would be rationed.

The majority of Americans get health insurance through private insurers. Most of them are enrolled in employer-sponsored plans.

Employer groups oppose a public plan, and Republicans call it a deal breaker.

# ¿ May 9, 2009 22:27

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

I like how the "savings" come from a slowdown of cost increases.

# ¿ May 11, 2009 01:37

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

The leaks on the "savings" with the Dems' healthcare plan reminded me of this study commissioned by calnurses.org, which was released in January:

The study in its entirety can be found here.

eta this chart, which accompanied the release of the study. Figures for the financial-industry bailout were based on the first tranche only, and include only the money distributed last fall:

Thanks for posting this, I'm going to yell at people over this tomorrow.

# ¿ May 11, 2009 02:41

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Posted this in the Obamarama thread, but hey:

Paul Krugman likes the news about the health care lobby reductions

quote:

Harry and Louise were the fictional couple who appeared in advertisements run by the insurance industry in 1993, fretting about what would happen if �government bureaucrats� started making health care decisions. The ads helped kill the Clinton health care plan, and have stood, ever since, as a symbol of the ability of powerful special interests to block health care reform.

But on Saturday, excited administration officials called me to say that this time the medical-industrial complex (their term, not mine) is offering to be helpful.

Six major industry players � including America�s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a descendant of the lobbying group that spawned Harry and Louise � have sent a letter to President Obama sketching out a plan to control health care costs. What�s more, the letter implicitly endorses much of what administration officials have been saying about health economics.

Are there reasons to be suspicious about this gift? You bet � and I�ll get to that in a bit. But first things first: on the face of it, this is tremendously good news.

The signatories of the letter say that they�re developing proposals to help the administration achieve its goal of shaving 1.5 percentage points off the growth rate of health care spending. That may not sound like much, but it�s actually huge: achieving that goal would save $2 trillion over the next decade.

How are costs to be contained? There are few details, but the industry has clearly been reading Peter Orszag, the budget director.

In his previous job, as the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Orszag argued that America spends far too much on some types of health care with little or no medical benefit, even as it spends too little on other types of care, like prevention and treatment of chronic conditions. Putting these together, he concluded that �substantial opportunities exist to reduce costs without harming health over all.�

Sure enough, the health industry letter talks of �reducing over-use and under-use of health care by aligning quality and efficiency incentives.� It also picks up a related favorite Orszag theme, calling for �adherence to evidence-based best practices and therapies.� All in all, it�s just what the doctor, er, budget director ordered.

Before we start celebrating, however, we have to ask the obvious question. Is this gift a Trojan horse? After all, several of the organizations that sent that letter have in the past been major villains when it comes to health care policy.

I�ve already mentioned AHIP. There�s also the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the lobbying group that helped push through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 � a bill that both prevented Medicare from bargaining over drug prices and locked in huge overpayments to private insurers. Indeed, one of the new letter�s signatories is former Representative Billy Tauzin, who shepherded that bill through Congress then immediately left public office to become PhRMA�s lavishly paid president.

The point is that there�s every reason to be cynical about these players� motives. Remember that what the rest of us call health care costs, they call income.

What�s presumably going on here is that key interest groups have realized that health care reform is going to happen no matter what they do, and that aligning themselves with the Party of No will just deny them a seat at the table. (Republicans, after all, still denounce research into which medical procedures are effective and which are not as a dastardly plot to deprive Americans of their freedom to choose.)

I would strongly urge the Obama administration to hang tough in the bargaining ahead. In particular, AHIP will surely try to use the good will created by its stance on cost control to kill an important part of health reform: giving Americans the choice of buying into a public insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers. The administration should not give in on this point.

But let me not be too negative. The fact that the medical-industrial complex is trying to shape health care reform rather than block it is a tremendously good omen. It looks as if America may finally get what every other advanced country already has: a system that guarantees essential health care to all its citizens.

And serious cost control would change everything, not just for health care, but for America�s fiscal future. As Mr. Orszag has emphasized, rising health care costs are the main reason long-run budget projections look so grim. Slow the rate at which those costs rise, and the future will look far brighter.

I still won�t count my health care chickens until they�re hatched. But this is some of the best policy news I�ve heard in a long time.

Paul

# ¿ May 11, 2009 15:49

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

he said some vague stuff, nothing new, said it's good that all groups* are at the table, didn't say anything about enforcing these cuts (1.5% over 10 years for 2 trillion in savings total), but he also said that this is just part of a comprehensive plan, compatible with it but not necessarily essential to it.

he had 3 goals, i don't remember what they were exactly, something about comprehension, something about lowering costs, something about people being able to choose their plan... no mention of public option/single-payer

edit: *note that "all groups" are insurance/pharma lobbying groups

# ¿ May 11, 2009 17:49

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

he literally said a bunch of words that gave no new information or even a hint on where he stands, he just confirmed some news that was already released and said "boy it sure is bad, we need to fix it"

obama's certainly making the case well that reform is necessary, which i guess was a significant hurdle in the 90s (i was too young to really know, but that's what i've been gathering), but beyond that he said nothing but a few vague goals for reform - which leads me to believe he's just accepting the lobbyists' "reduction" and leaving it to let congress hash out the details (or, alternatively, letting congress take the hit for now dropping the public option in the wake of such great news from our friends in the insurance industry)

# ¿ May 11, 2009 19:12

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

where has Dean been? he should be the populist leader of this thing

# ¿ May 11, 2009 19:15

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Jaime posted:

Krugman sucks. Obama sucks.

Long live FDR, the last president to actually try to get public healthcare.

LBJ?

# ¿ May 11, 2009 21:23

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Right, I was just referring to Dean's disappearance. I guess he's busy coding his new site design, but he's probably the most visible figure of this movement so I'm not sure why I'm not hearing more from him.

# ¿ May 11, 2009 23:16

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

It's not a mandate; it's a "personal responsibility."

link to the policy proposals is in the story: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22407.html

so basically they haven't ruled out anything

# ¿ May 12, 2009 06:26

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

only single-payer--the most popular, logical and cost-effective solution

haha, I was just coming back to edit that in.

I just read an NYT editorial praising Schumer's "middle way"

edit: also this from HealthJustice: "we have heard that Baucus' office simply hangs up whenever anyone says 'single payer."

# ¿ May 12, 2009 06:59

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

does this report give any new/interesting reasons as to why Medicare is insolvent?

# ¿ May 12, 2009 22:18

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

Oh, and another comment in the diary said that Jeff Bingaman made a motion to include a single-payer advocate in today's hearing but no other senator would second his motion. Time to crank up the calls to the Senate Finance Committee members again.

gently caress Schumer, didn't he say he would support that if someone else would go for it too?

# ¿ May 13, 2009 00:55

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Whilst farting I posted:

is it this

lol, i pretty much have no idea what that says

# ¿ May 13, 2009 01:46

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Whilst farting I posted:

afaik that says "if you're sick, you get charged more" - as in you get placed in a "pool" with individuals who have similar ailments, who are also charged more, because you're more "at risk" to need medical help (this shouldn't happen in any decent plan - everybody should be charged the same)

somebody with more time check this out ty

Ah, duh, I was misreading that

# ¿ May 13, 2009 03:29

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Jaime posted:

I wish Kooch was our President.

# ¿ May 13, 2009 05:28

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

What's interesting is that Kucinich is using a talking point from the GOP in calling Obama's "reform" an insurance industry bailout. I can't remember if I read it here or elsewhere, but there was an article detailing some secret health care obstruction memo passed around by Republicans, and that was one of the talking points.

And it should be one of the talking points, but I'm somewhat heartened that it's coming from the left rather than the right.

(not that anything the Republicans do really matters)

# ¿ May 13, 2009 16:58

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

And claimiam, your response is the correct one. The power elites would like nothing better than to have cynicism drive voters to disengage from the legislative process.

One of the reasons I'm so gaga over the guy in my avatar is because he's worked so tirelessly to address the systemic corruption in our political system because of privately financed campaigns.

Thanks Willa and claimiam, because I've been feeling pretty discouraged lately (and especially today) about this.

I want to share all the information that you (Willa) post to a wider audience... I've been posting messages about health care to my Facebook page (lol) and am going to start writing letters to the editor, but are there any more effective ways to spread this message?

# ¿ May 14, 2009 01:01

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

I've kind of come to Willa's conclusion as well. When the best public option being considered by the Senate would discriminate based on preexisting conditions, a "public option" is no longer a credible idea.

edit: And yet, saying "single-payer" certainly doesn't work, because that's just being ignored, so I think "Medicare-for-All (for those who want it)" is really the best approach to take.

coolhockey fucked around with this message at 02:36 on May 14, 2009

# ¿ May 14, 2009 02:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:04

coolhockey: May 3, 2005; let's party like it's 1994

Willa Rogers posted:

also, it's hard for opponents to paint medicare-for-all-who-want-it as some scary commie system, since half of the members of congress are prolly on it themselves and because seniors poll out as way more satisfied with medicare than the general public does on private employer-based insurance

framing the issue as medicare for all simply says that all Americans should have access to the same system that seniors do

the only problem with that (and this is why I keep bringing it up) is the whole Medicare-insolvency issue (in terms of framing the debate)

of course, now they have that one public option explicitly referred to as "Medicare-like" so gently caress.

# ¿ May 14, 2009 03:37

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > LF Goldmine > Get off your lazy goon-ass and help pass healthcare reform

«‹›2 »