Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 07:01pm PT
|
"Many over 55 wil just plain quit, the remaining will have less time with patients, and the field will not be as attractive."
Average Doctors salary...between 150-200k...not so easy to find alternative work that pays that sort of money.....if pay scales do drop an bit then what?...only 40 instead of 50 qualified applicants for every place in Medical school?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 07:23pm PT
|
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 07:39pm PT
|
Yep TGT, lets bring back the republicans. They bankrupted the country and got us into two wars. Lets see what else they can do. Yeee haaaw.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 08:02pm PT
|
The reasons for my harsh response to Norton’s post stating that the opposition is racist are twofold. I am tired of two arguments which serve to demonize the opposition but do not hold water. One, of course is that darned race card. Allegedly folks are against health reform because President Obama is black, has a Muslim name and so they want him to fail no matter what.
The other is that the “Repugs” only agenda is to kill the bill but they have nothing to contribute to the process. Well of course the opposition wants to kill the bill. It’s a terrible bill and an attempt is being made to cram it through the Senate by next Wednesday with little or no scrutiny. In their eyes stopping this runaway train is a contribution.
But the real truth is in the polling numbers. Today’s Rasmussen has only 34% of voters nationwide saying they think passing Obamacare is better than doing nothing. The Presidential tracking poll numbers give Obama 28% “strongly support” and 42% “strongly disapprove.” I’d sure like to see the arm twisting going on in the halls of the Senate by Harry Reid and the Administration right now trying to get enough Democrats to fall on their swords for this turkey.
If you think about it, the drop from 65% to 28% of strong supporters has to come almost entirely from people who voted for Obama (those who did not vote for him were in the 35% against from the beginning.) So these one time supporters are the people whose opposition to the President and his health care initiative are killing the bill. Hard to call them racists, or even “Repugs” for the most part.
|
|
PRRose
climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 08:31pm PT
|
A good deal of the recent drop in support for the current bill is coming from the left. Those are not people who would prefer doing nothing; they are registering their opposition to the weakening of the bill. They still support health care reform, though.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 08:39pm PT
|
Yes, the left, and I am one, is PISSED right now that there are NOT enough
votes for a Public Option to compete against the private insurers.
We are also PISSED that the plan to drop the age for Medicare from 65
to 55 was scrapped.
So, a LOT of us right now do NOT like the plan.
It is NOT what we were HOPING for.
This does not mean we don't think it should be passed anyway, we are
just like anyone else when angry, we did not get what we wanted, and
so we are acting like irrational children and pouting.
We will suck it up and get over it.
Even a WEAK bill is BETTER than no bill and leaving things the same.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 08:40pm PT
|
"...but many right now will not treat, or treat for free, patients who only have medicare simply because they do not have the staff to deal with the cumbersome compliance of medicare."
Ed, how should I put this...you're wrong. Yes, that's the best way.
I'm going to make an assumption (correct if wrong, please) that you have gained this impression via media sources that have clear connections and biases to the GOP. OK, I'll be specific: FauxNews.
Funny, because while I have certainly heard that charge from those sources, I have also heard just as many other media sources state Physician's preferences for treating Medicare patients over private insurance: yes, there is paperwork, but it is nothing compared to the back & forth wheeling & dealing negotiating with insurance companies, as they do all they can to minimize their payouts.
Besides Norton's well-repeated article showing clear, unequivocal support of physicians for a single payer plan, here's an organization of physicians who have been supporting the idea since the 80's:
http://www.pnhp.org/
I believe this is the study Norton has repeated posting:
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/physicians-support-reform-public-and-private-insurance-options
An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine polling physicians on their opinion of reform options:
"Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options (see Panel A of graph). Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option (see Table 1). Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%)..."
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790
Shall we dig up the studies on citizen's satisfaction rates with Medicare, and how political leaders know that to change it or take it away is political suicide?
Have you, or any of you Repubs out there, ever heard of these studies, or dare I ask...read them? Or do you just stick to 'your own kind', in your own little echo chambers, patting each other on the back for supporting your leaders for doing absolutely nothing?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 09:00pm PT
|
Ksolem, I'm not gonna touch the racist issue- it has been beaten to death repeatedly on at least one other thread. I'm hoping it just goes away, and that miraculously, all of the racist bullsh*t that has been generated since January 20 never happens again.
'Ramming this through Congress?' Yeah, probably- I just can't take the Repugs whining about this tactic seriously after 8 years of them ramming their agenda down our throats. Like their rants about excessive spending, they have no credibility whatsoever.
I don't like the current bill at all- it is a tremendous disappointment. No real cost controls, individual mandates & penalties, no single payer/public option, maintaining the employer obligation, and it is a big, fat gift to the insurance industry and big pharma, which makes me ill. In the end, not many are really going to benefit (esp. since the benefits don't kick in for 2-4 years), either.
'Ramming it through?' Jeebus, this issue has been deteriorating for 50 years!!! Whether it be healthcare reform bills or omnibus spending bills for the Iraq War, this is how politics works, as sucky as it is. I'm not going to argue their rationale, but it is unquestionably clear that the Repugs preferred alternative is status quo, and have no interest whatsoever in any real change. They will do all that they can to nuke this, Clinton's efforts, and any future POTUS's efforts towards reform.
I don't like the bill, but the one thing it might provide is the potential to be improved as time goes along. Because the fact of the matter is that if two POTUS's fail in their efforts, no future POTUS with any real hope of staying in office will ever touch that issue again for a long, long time.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 12:46pm PT
|
What's In It For Me, Five Examples:
As Congress gets closer to a final health care bill, many Americans want to know: What's in it for me?
The answer is: It depends.
On your age and household income. Whether you own a business and whether it's big or small. Whether you're insured now and who provides that insurance. In the end, it will depend on how House and Senate negotiators will merge the proposals, and how their vision gets translated into regulations.
Five Americans shared their stories with The Associated Press. Here's an educated guess on how the health care package taking shape in Congress might affect them.
___
Name: Holly Brown
Home: Round Lake, Ill.
Age: 28
Story continues below
Employment: Student, working part time, receiving unemployment benefits.
Household income: about $15,000.
Coverage: Insured, but struggling to afford it.
Brown was laid off last year from a job she'd held for four years. She's stayed insured because of the government COBRA program, which allows workers to remain on a health plan for 18 months after they leave their jobs, if they pay the premiums.
Brown works part time and studies medical imaging at College of Lake County. She has a chronic lung condition and was in the emergency room in November with flu and pneumonia. She's paid about $1,000 in medical bills this year that her insurance didn't cover.
She doesn't know how she'll pay her $500 premium this month because a government subsidy that helped her afford the premium has expired.
"It's scary to think about what's going to happen if I can't make the payment by the end of the month," Brown said.
The health care overhaul taking shape in Congress would require her to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. She could pick a plan offered through new state-based insurance exchanges and she would qualify for a subsidy to help pay her premiums because she makes less than 400 percent of the poverty level ($43,320 for an individual in 2009). But all those benefits wouldn't kick in until 2013 in the House bill (2014 in the Senate legislation). Because of her medical problem, she may be able to qualify for coverage during the transition period by going through high-risk insurance pools called for in the legislation.
___
Name: Glenn Nishimura
Home: Little Rock, Ark.
Age: 60
Employment: Consultant to nonprofit groups.
Household income: $55,000, including wife's earnings.
Coverage: Uninsured since COBRA expired in May.
Nishimura left a full-time job with benefits in October 2007 thinking he'd be able to find another good position.
Then the recession hit.
He's now a self-employed consultant. Since May, he's been without health insurance. For 18 months, he bought insurance through the COBRA program. When that ran out, he tried to find other coverage. He's been turned down by five insurance companies because he has high blood pressure and high blood sugar levels, even though he's otherwise healthy, has never been hospitalized and controls his conditions through diet and exercise.
"I could get H1N1 or get into an accident and I would be potentially bankrupt," Nishimura said. "It's an untenable situation."
The Medicare buy-in proposal considered in the Senate could have helped Nishimura get insurance, as would portions of both the House and Senate bills that would ban denials for pre-existing conditions. But opposition from moderates and a few liberals is forcing Senate Democratic leaders to scrap the idea of a buy-in to get a bill completed.
Nishimura said he e-mailed President Barack Obama suggesting that lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 or 60 would create jobs. "I know a lot of people who would like to retire early, but can't because of health care," he said.
Name: David W. Brown
Home: Philadelphia
Age: 47
Employment: Owner of BrownPartners, an advertising and marketing agency. Seven employees. $336,000 in annual wages paid.
Household income: $150,000, including wife's earnings.
Coverage: Provides health, dental and vision coverage to employees.
An ad agency owner, Brown has been able to offer health insurance to his seven employees, but has had to cut benefits because of rising costs. Like other business owners, Brown is trying to figure out what will emerge from Congress and how it will affect him.
"We haven't been able to be as generous as we have in the past," Brown said of the insurance plan he offers his workers. "The good thing is, not a lot of folks are leaving because somebody else has a better plan."
Health care overhaul might help Brown and his wife with coverage for their daughters, now age 17 and 20. The proposals would allow young adults to stay on their parents' insurance plans as dependents into their mid-20s.
Brown would be able to shop for insurance for his workers through a health insurance exchange. Neither of the bills would require him to provide coverage. Both bills provide tax credits to help small companies with average wages of less than $40,000 provide health insurance. But pay levels in Brown's agency are above that cutoff.
___
Name: Robert Hansen
Home: Seattle homeless shelter
Age: 58
Employment: vendor, Real Change street newspaper.
Household income: $12,000, including tips.
Coverage: Uninsured.
Hansen used to work selling beer and peanuts at Seattle's now-demolished Kingdome. "Age caught up to me, running up and down the stairs, the physical labor," said the 58-year-old Seattle native.
Hansen has been homeless since 1994. A top-selling vendor of a weekly newspaper called Real Change, he makes about $1,000 a month. He eats his evening meal and finds a bed at a Catholic Community Services shelter.
The tingling in his feet and the occasional purplish color of his hands worry him. It's been so long since he's had a thorough physical exam that he's not sure if his symptoms could mean a serious health problem such as diabetes. He's uninsured and finds care in community clinics and emergency rooms.
Hansen and most other poor adults without young children don't qualify for Medicaid, the state-federal program that helps low-income families with health care. The proposals in Congress would expand Medicaid coverage to people such as Hansen.
In the leading Senate proposal, people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404 for an individual in 2009) could enroll in Medicaid. The House bill makes the cutoff 150 percent of the poverty level ($16,245 for an individual in 2009).
___
Name: Carol McKenna
Home: Pembroke Pines, Fla.
Age: 68
Employment: Retired payroll coordinator
Household income: About $39,000 from Social Security and some earnings by husband as mattress salesman.
Coverage: Medicare Advantage policy administered by AvMed Health Plans.
If McKenna believes the claims of the insurance industry and many Republicans, she and her husband are among the most at risk to be hurt by Congress' health proposals. If Democrats are telling the truth, they will be among those with the most to gain.
The 68-year-old retiree refrains from any worry, or any premature celebration. She simply believes, "It'll work out."
McKenna and her husband, Morty, who turns 78 on Sunday, are in private Medicare Advantage plans, which many Democrats have called wasteful and which have been made a prime target for major cuts. But Morty McKenna also falls in the coverage gap in Medicare's prescription drug program – the "doughnut hole" – that the health bills have promised to close. More than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries a year hit this gap and start paying the full cost of their drugs until they qualify for catastrophic coverage.
She said the government must "get rid of the abuses" and that pharmaceutical companies "need to step up and be accountable." For now, though, she's just waiting to see what actually happens.
___
Associated Press writers Matt Sedensky in Miami, Jesse Washington in Philadelphia and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington contributed to this report.
hp
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 02:21pm PT
|
fattrad, I'm a moderate lib and I say you're wrong.
Glad we got that settled.
Edit: By the way, for the record, I have not expressed my opinion of what the D of I writers meant by 'life', either- I simply pointed out that your definition (the non-constitutional scholar) is not really any more valid than Ken's, or Sarah Palin's, or Dennis Kucinich's.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 03:03pm PT
|
Thanks, Skip.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 03:28pm PT
|
Fatrad, my only response to you, is if you refute the Declaration, then fie upon you. I didn't respond right away, because I had to go work to earn YOUR medicare coverage.
"there is no way to measure how many docs will flat quit if healthcare is federalized.... but many right now will not treat, or treat for free, patients who only have medicare simply because they do not have the staff to deal with the cumbersome compliance of medicare. In rural areas, where there are 1 doc shops that do not handle medicare, they will simply close.
longer drives and less access. and,
for those docs that are left... is there anyone who has filled out any federally regulated document that thinks the remaining docs will have less time for paperwork, and more time for patients? no.
Federalized healthcare, in any form, will mean less access to a doctor, not more.
Many over 55 wil just plain quit, the remaining will have less time with patients, and the field will not be as attractive."
This obviously comes from a non-doctor. Medicare is the simplest system that doctors currenly work with. Easiest forms, no pre-authorization on anything, you can get anything done, anywhere. No non-contracted facilities, labs, imaging centers, virtually no non-contracted specialists. The pay rates tend to be better than private insurance in Calif.
Yeah, we'll quit that.
And whoever said that there will be 50 people for every space in medical schools is wrong. I sat on the admission committee on mine, and the number of QUALIFIED applicants for every position was 300, and is a little higher, today.
In my experience, most physicians make a lot of money, and work pretty hard for it, under incredible pressure. However, they also lead a lifestyle that demands high compensation. Most are not in a position to give up that lifestyle (or more importantly, their spouses).
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 03:34pm PT
|
Skip, when you say:
"Why again do you advocate all of us be under the same health
care? Because each of us has a different view of what life is about?"
Do you advocate that we not be under the same defense system, since we have different positions on what defense is?
Do you advocate that we not be under the public health systems, since we have different positions on what health is?
Do you advocate that we not be under the same government, since we have different positions on what government should be?
We are all in this together. There are efficiencies of common action.
|
|
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 03:46pm PT
|
dr. ken hits a grand slam with his inside knowledge of the medical profession...time for the fox news devotees to dig up some more rumors and innuendo to keep the debate going.....
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 03:50pm PT
|
Fatrad, I've finally had time to sit down and look. Lets start at the beginning:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE
By the way, that is in the Constitution. Your right to bear arms, to a speedy trial, to freedom of religion, etc, ARE NOT.
Those are NOT in the Constitution, they are found in AMENDMENTS, which were NOT adopted at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, but added years later.
The Founders thought that providing for the general Welfare was MORE IMPORTANT that those other rights, and so stated, in the FIRST SENTENCE of the ORIGINAL WORDING of the Constitution, as adopted.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 04:50pm PT
|
Nice, well-supported response, Ken. Don't hold your breath on seeing anything similar from fattrad, though. To my eye, in many respects, interpreting the D of I, the Bill of Rights, or the Bible all face similar subjective challenges. Of course, that leaves lots of room for any individual, with any agenda, to skew the meaning in their direction, and there will be plenty of dull-minded, intellectually lazy sheep that will follow along.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 04:56pm PT
|
The founding fathers were brilliant in the prescient manner in which they established this country, but that prescience could never forsee specifics about how the future would unfold for the citizens and the country.
The concept of healthcare for the citizenry did not exist at that time, let alone the idea of health insurance. Nonetheless, my .02 opinion is that 'promote the general welfare' would indeed include a reasonable healthcare system by which the citizens can maintain good health.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 04:59pm PT
|
"The question of interpretation belongs to the realm of the court or the third branch of government. That is why we HAVE them in the first place. We have some problems, however, when we have activists judges who cannot distinguish between the legislative branches and the judicial branches of government either in construct, conception or function."
Fortunately, your opinion on whether there is a problem is apparently irrelevant, inasmuch as you are not apparently a court.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 05:00pm PT
|
"Just look at how many are willing to use the jack boot of Government nowadays..."
Skip, I'm not trying to taunt you with this question, but come on... how exactly has the US Gov't ever exerted a 'jackboot' on your life? Don't you think that's a little extreme?
Edit:
""The question of interpretation belongs to the realm of the court or the third branch of government."
Tru nuff, but what's your point? The Supreme Court is not going to make a decision about whether a healthcare system fits within a reasonable interpretation of 'promote the general welfare'.
|
|
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2009 - 05:05pm PT
|
skipt....if the words " general welfare" doesn't do it for you , how about the word justice....? as in economic justice....if the reports are true , under W , a great number of more americans fell below the federal poverty level line .....this isn't hard to believe when i look at the local vons that had it's unions de-fanged.....most of the long time workers bailed and were replaced with lower paying employees who's citizenship is questionable...and the price of groceries sky-rocketed....i look at the largest employer in this town , the ski area , and see the same thing happening...corporate downsizing of the workforce inspite of good profits....and wages have not kept up with inflation.....don't want to point fingers here but it seems some of W's economic reform policies benefitted the big corporations at the expense of the little guys and you expect the peons to be able to afford outlandish healthcare premiuns....? what's your solution , concentration camps for the less fortunate....? not saying it's all the republicans doings but they seem to be the party that pulls the hardest for corporate america and the least for the under dogs...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!