Equity market says US Health Bill is killed

[ZirconBlue]

So now that the health care plan is dead, when are you going to start your ANTI-nazi/commie protest against socialized police, fire, libraries, education etc?

Not to mention Medicare & Medicaid.

 

[Region Rat]

Progressives have compromised already to the point that these bills wouldn't be workeable anymore if you cancelled key provisions (mandates, subsidies and the provisions meant to eliminate denial of coverage). So unless you go for a radical and transformative plan like Wyden-Bennett, there is no further compromise possible.

No, that is not my point. You are starting from the assumption that the only good plan is the one that the progressives (not my word, but from the post I quoted) put forward, and that has been chopped down by the non-progressives. My point is that there may well be a plan that solves the problem by coming from a different starting point. In that case, the compromises are different, and may well be possible.

 

[Peephole]

When the option is generic, people often treat the option as if it matched their specific desires. And so people who want a "public option", but not the same "public option", will answer the question the same way, even though they may want incompatible things.

So, people are in favour of the public option. You don't agree with those people, because you don't think they understand it, but that still doesn't mean they're not in favour.

Hell, even if they want the same thing, they may only want it if they can get it at a cost which is not achievable. So when a poll asks a question about an unspecified option with no associated cost, well, why would you expect that poll to be meaningful?

You're saying there are people who be in favour of a public option that costs money instead of saving money? I think that's very doubtful.

Or in case that's too complicated for you, let me make it simple: those poll results don't mean anything. Elections do. Know any recent elections in which Obamacare was a major issue? I do.

I didn't know the United States consists of only one state. I think you've a lost a couple there somewhere.

 

[Peephole]

No, that is not my point. You are starting from the assumption that the only good plan is the one that the progressives (not my word, but from the post I quoted) put forward, and that has been chopped down by the non-progressives. My point is that there may well be a plan that solves the problem by coming from a different starting point. In that case, the compromises are different, and may well be possible.

Yes, and that's what I meant with a different plan like Wyden-Bennet...

Pretty much the only alternative out there. Or did you know of another one?

 

[dudalb]

That might be so, but that's the misinformed (thanks to the media, the Republicans and inept Democrats) American public that's screwing themselves over.

I knew we would get around to the "Stupid American People" meme so beloved by Euros sooner or later.

 

[dudalb]

May that be true. And may it come to pass that many decades go by before the utter destruction of the best health care system in the world is again attempted by socialists.

Let it go, you nazi/commie statists. You lost your latest chance. As usual.

I just have to note this guy made a Racist post about Haiti in another thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, people are in favour of the public option.

No, Peephole. A public option. But not necessarily the same one, and not necessarily one that's even achievable in the real world.

You don't agree with those people, because you don't think they understand it

There is no "it". The poll question wasn't about any "it". The question was about a generic, unspecified option.

You're saying there are people who be in favour of a public option that costs money instead of saving money?

Uh, no. You missed my point by a mile.

 

[bpesta22]

Australia has it, and it's not a disaster. It's called community rating.

I saw and episode of an American TV show once with a scenario. Person changes jobs, goes for health check, feels fine. Health check reveals cancer, no insurance cover.

I think this is illegal under HIPAA, which is still law now as far as I know. The most a PEC can be excluded is for 12 months, and only if the PEC wasn't previously covered last year by a former employer's (e.g.) insurance.

 

[Magyar]

Or in case that's too complicated for you, let me make it simple: those poll results don't mean anything. Elections do. Know any recent elections in which Obamacare was a major issue? I do.

I am SORRY but did you ACTUALLY read the article you pointed to?
I voted for Coakley while holding my nose because frankly I couldn't decide whether she was the best or worse choice the MA dems put up. But in any case she was AT BEST a 3rd class candidate. I still voted for her because I believe that there are times when we simply need to take a big step forward and the 60 voted would have allowed the Dems to do that. I believe that just like in the 30s with social security it is/as time to make a huge change with health care because of the personal as fell as economic effect it has on our nation. BUT NOWHERE in that article does it say that this was a vote against Obamacare. THAT is a meme the repugs created to push THEIR agenda.


EVIDENCE of this is 2 fold!
1)
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...s_bashers_take_note_health_reform_is_working/

There is one other statistic about the Massachusetts plan that politicians, in particular, should appreciate. According to Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kennedy School of Government, the law’s approval rating in June 2008 was 69 percent. That is a figure officeholders can only dream about.

2) Browns own words in the last 2 days regarding health care and how he, while against the current plan, is for some kind of health care and did in fact vote FOR the MA plan and would vote FOR something along those lines where the states could chose.


SO - IF the vote for Brown was a vote AGAINST health care reform then you and all the repugs walking around MA today slapping their chests are complete FOOLS because that is NOT what Brown is about or going to do!

 

[bpesta22]

ya good question!

I was hoping someone with more knowledge on this would speak to the market side of things...

I've often wondered this too-- the financial news people are always quick to explain the news that made the whole market up or down (by whatever %) today. I wonder how many times they just assign cause to coincidence.

 

[bpesta22]

Random-- another comment related to cause and effect. It could be that all m.d.s are motivated solely by profit and that's why x% of all procedures are not really needed. Or, maybe the m.d.s are running the un-needed tests anyways to avoid liability when the patient eventually dies?

 

[bpesta22]

Fran-- how much did you lose on the health care / index trade!

 

[Ziggurat]

SO - IF the vote for Brown was a vote AGAINST health care reform then you and all the repugs walking around MA today slapping their chests are complete FOOLS because that is NOT what Brown is about or going to do!

Huh. Did anyone tell Obama?


Hell, did anyone tell Brown?


Edit: oh, I see. You think I'm talking about health care reform generically (which, really, doesn't mean anything, since both single-payer systems and total free markets would qualify as "reform"). Well, that's just a strawman. Brown made his opposition to the current Democratic plans quite explicit. Obama certainly took him at his word. I expect the voters did too.

 

[WildCat]

Yep, it will mean that you can now only get insurance from states that offer the least consumer protection, and the most ways of targeting the costs to the sick. Why bother offering coverage in states that don't do what you want them to?

Why not get the states out of regulating health insurance entirely, and regulate it at the federal level? Replace 50 state insurance bureaucracies, each with hundreds if not thousands of pages of regulations, with one federal one.

 

[WildCat]

There is plenty of competition in healthcare delivery, but in medicine, supply drives demand. The more doctors there are, the more they have to compete for clients, but doctors are usually paid ala carte or for each procedure performed.

The supply of doctors is kept artificially low by the AMA, the only group which can certify medical schools in the US. They want a shortage, which keeps prices high. And the fee for service model (which you call "ala carte") is a major reason health care in the US costs twice as much as almost every other country on earth. Pay by each service, and you will get more services, whether or not they're needed. There's no reason at all doctors can't get paid a salary like almost every other professional.

If the numbr of clients they have starts to fall, they start looking for things to fix in their remaining patients (extra blood tests, laser eye surgery instead of glasses, knee surgery instead of a cane, etc). The result is that the amount of work the doctor performs stays the same, regardless of how many extra doctors you throw in the mix. Patients who can afford it like it because they get more bells and whistles and yeah, a few extra lives are saved. Doctors like it because they can stay in business and make money. But costs don't come down at all. That's how we got a healthcare system where one third of medical procedures are medically unneccessary.

Which is why there should be laws/rules in place favoring salaried doctors, rather than fee-for-service.

Health insurance has its own issues regarding competition. Health insurance companies save money is by arranging contracts with hospitals and doctors to have their clients get discounted rates, or else they will go to a different hospital/doctor. If one health insurer covers fifty percent of a hospitals patients, they are in a great position to bargain for lower rates. But if there are more health insurers in an area, they will each have a smaller portion of a hospitals business and lose bargaining power. Counterintuitively, increased health insurace company competition can lead to higher prices. Thats why Aetna dropped a lot of contracts. Not because they were unhealthy or unprofitable, but because of their physical location. If they lived in an area where Aetna didn't have a solid bargaining block of the population, Aetna dropped em.

This is a great point, and one which screams for a regulatory solution. There's no reason at all hospitals can't be required to charge the same fee for the same service for all their customers. In fact, their fees should be posted on their web site.

 

[Peephole]

I knew we would get around to the "Stupid American People" meme so beloved by Euros sooner or later.

Why is impossible for people to be badly informed?

No, Peephole. A public option. But not necessarily the same one, and not necessarily one that's even achievable in the real world.

There is no "it". The poll question wasn't about any "it". The question was about a generic, unspecified option.

How many fundamentally different public options are there according to you? Which one is unachievable?

Uh, no. You missed my point by a mile.

Not really, I was just testing if you're one of the deluded people that thinks the public option would cost money instead of save money.

 

[Peephole]

Well, that's just a strawman. Brown made his opposition to the current Democratic plans quite explicit. Obama certainly took him at his word. I expect the voters did too.

People in politics don't always oppose laws because they disagree with them.

Sometimes they just think it'll win them an election.

 

[WildCat]

Not really, because the alternative to Democrats is the Republicans, who don't support any workeable health care reform at all.

No, this is just as wrong as "the bill lost support because it was not ambitious enough." I don't think the American public cares all that much about the specifics of health care reform, as long as it works.

They soured on health care because of the protracted struggle, deals with special intrests and the industry, and because of several lies Republicans told them about the bills (death panels, huge costs, Medicare dismantling).

Progressive elements in the plans like a public option, however, are generally popular ideas. But I don't think cancelling these things gets people to drop their support either.

I think your view from across the pond is obscured by the haze.

 

[Ziggurat]

People in politics don't always oppose laws because they disagree with them.

Sometimes they just think it'll win them an election.

Are you saying Brown will oppose the Democrat's health care plans even though he doesn't believe that he should? If so, it doesn't matter to my point.

Or are you saying that he lied about opposing them and tricked the voters, who voted for him hoping that he's oppose those plans but will soon be disappointed? If so, that too doesn't signal that voters aren't opposed to those plans.

Or are you saying that voters thought he lied, and they voted for him expecting him to support the plans even though he said he'd oppose them? That one I'm just not seeing.

 

[WildCat]

How? It's simply not possible when moderate Senate Democrats will torpedo the reforms progressives want and Republicans obviously will not support it either. Short of 100 million voters marching on Washington with pitchforks and torches demanding strong health care reform it's simply not going to happen.

Don't be an enabler Zen, your attitude is exactly what the politicians and their big money financiers count on.

Why not tell the screeching extremists on both sides to go pound sand?