Health care-operation...comic
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
BAUCUS WINS REPUBLICAN BACKER ON HEALTH CARE BILL AHEAD OF KEY VOTE
Sen. Olympia Snowe says she will vote for health care reform legislation before the Senate Finance Committee, becoming the only Republican to back the bill and virtually assuring passage.
Snowe's support was the most sought-after Republican vote by Democrats for months. The Main Republican could be only member of her party to vote for health care reform, though she cautioned Tuesday that support for the committee bill does not guarantee support for a final product.
She was among several key senators still on the fence over the pivotal package going into deliberations Tuesday, even though leadership aides said they were confident the bill would win enough backers.
"This package is going into a wrong direction. Spending more and taxing more without covering more people," Bunning said.
"Now it's time to get the done," chairman Baucus, D-Mont., said. "My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history."
Snowe's support was the most sought-after Republican vote by Democrats for months. The Main Republican could be only member of her party to vote for health care reform, though she cautioned Tuesday that support for the committee bill does not guarantee support for a final product.
She was among several key senators still on the fence over the pivotal package going into deliberations Tuesday, even though leadership aides said they were confident the bill would win enough backers.
"This package is going into a wrong direction. Spending more and taxing more without covering more people," Bunning said.
"Now it's time to get the done," chairman Baucus, D-Mont., said. "My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Health Care Reform Bill Clears Finale Senate Panel, Tough Negotiations Loom
The Senate Finance Committee votes to send its version of the legislation to the Senate floor after months of closely watched deliberations.
Health care reform cleared a major hurdle Tuesday, as the Senate finance Committee voted to send its version of the legislation to the Senate floor after months of closely watched deliberations.
The Committee voted 14-9 in favor of the package. One Republican, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, broke with her party to support the bill. All 13 Democrats on the panel voted in favor of it, while the rest of the republicans opposed it.
The panel was the last of five to act on health legislation, and the vote marked the biggest advance so far toward health care reform, as thecommittee's legislation is considered the best building block for a compromise plan in the full Senate.
But much work still remains on the package, and Senate Republicans made clear after the committee vote that they will continue to fight the bill.
"Its going to cost us an arm and a leg," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R. Utah, said "The costs of this are astronomical"
If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills before heading to the president's desk.
The 10 year, $829 billion Finance Committee bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help low income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take everyone, and people could shop for insurance within ne state marketplaces called exchanges.
Medicaid would be expanded, an though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with goverment subsidies.
The bill is paid by cuts to Medicares providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.
Health care reform cleared a major hurdle Tuesday, as the Senate finance Committee voted to send its version of the legislation to the Senate floor after months of closely watched deliberations.
The Committee voted 14-9 in favor of the package. One Republican, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, broke with her party to support the bill. All 13 Democrats on the panel voted in favor of it, while the rest of the republicans opposed it.
The panel was the last of five to act on health legislation, and the vote marked the biggest advance so far toward health care reform, as thecommittee's legislation is considered the best building block for a compromise plan in the full Senate.
But much work still remains on the package, and Senate Republicans made clear after the committee vote that they will continue to fight the bill.
"Its going to cost us an arm and a leg," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R. Utah, said "The costs of this are astronomical"
If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills before heading to the president's desk.
The 10 year, $829 billion Finance Committee bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help low income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take everyone, and people could shop for insurance within ne state marketplaces called exchanges.
Medicaid would be expanded, an though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with goverment subsidies.
The bill is paid by cuts to Medicares providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.
Monday, October 12, 2009
SENATE HEALTH BILL OVERHYPER
Most of the news stories on the preliminary assessment by Budget Office of the preliminary version of the Senate Finance Committee's health care legislation (the Baucus bill) verged on the ecstatic. It meets President Barack Obama's criteria by costing less the $900 billion over 10 years (only $829 billion!). It would cover 94 percent of Americans!
And sound the trumpets it would reduce the federal deficit by a whopping $81 billion over those 10 years!
What's not to like?
Unfortunately, a closer look suggests that the members of the Senate Finance Committee carefully crafted the bill to look good under the criteria by which the CBO is statutorily required to assess proposed legislation.
The most telling example has to do with Medicare. The bill assumes that Congress will allow what are called "sustainable growth rate" cuts in Medicare spending in 2012 and beyond, and the CBO had to assume this would be the case, saving $200 billion over 10 years. But the requirement to make those cuts has been in the law since 2003 and every year since 2003 Congress has refused to do so. The assumption that it Will suddenly get fiscal religion in 2012 is untenable.
Similar objection applies to the other $200 billion or so the proposed bill seeks to cut from waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and unnecessary spending in other federal health care programs. The government has been promising to cut waste, fraud and abuse since the Reagan administration. Every so often it trims a little bit of fingernail from the fraud monster, but spending keeps rising. There's no reason to imagine that pattern will be broken all of sudden.
It's also worth nothing that the Baucus bill contains more tax increases than promised spending cuts. The biggest is a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans in excess of $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families the-so-called "Cadillac" plans. This tax would be passed along to consumers, and as health care costs continue to rise these higher costs would affect a growing number of middle-income Americans.
Most egregiously, as Cato Institute health policy specialist Michael Cannon pointed out to us, many of the costs in the Baucus bill are pushed off-budget or imposed on states and private businesses in the form of unfunded mandates. Expanding Medicaid would force state governments to spend $35 billion more. When Massachusetts initiated a similar program 60 percent of the costs were in the form of private-sector mandates-which drive up prices and are passed along to consumers.
As Mr. Cannon put it, "provided that the sun rises in the West, the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit."
And sound the trumpets it would reduce the federal deficit by a whopping $81 billion over those 10 years!
What's not to like?
Unfortunately, a closer look suggests that the members of the Senate Finance Committee carefully crafted the bill to look good under the criteria by which the CBO is statutorily required to assess proposed legislation.
The most telling example has to do with Medicare. The bill assumes that Congress will allow what are called "sustainable growth rate" cuts in Medicare spending in 2012 and beyond, and the CBO had to assume this would be the case, saving $200 billion over 10 years. But the requirement to make those cuts has been in the law since 2003 and every year since 2003 Congress has refused to do so. The assumption that it Will suddenly get fiscal religion in 2012 is untenable.
Similar objection applies to the other $200 billion or so the proposed bill seeks to cut from waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and unnecessary spending in other federal health care programs. The government has been promising to cut waste, fraud and abuse since the Reagan administration. Every so often it trims a little bit of fingernail from the fraud monster, but spending keeps rising. There's no reason to imagine that pattern will be broken all of sudden.
It's also worth nothing that the Baucus bill contains more tax increases than promised spending cuts. The biggest is a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans in excess of $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families the-so-called "Cadillac" plans. This tax would be passed along to consumers, and as health care costs continue to rise these higher costs would affect a growing number of middle-income Americans.
Most egregiously, as Cato Institute health policy specialist Michael Cannon pointed out to us, many of the costs in the Baucus bill are pushed off-budget or imposed on states and private businesses in the form of unfunded mandates. Expanding Medicaid would force state governments to spend $35 billion more. When Massachusetts initiated a similar program 60 percent of the costs were in the form of private-sector mandates-which drive up prices and are passed along to consumers.
As Mr. Cannon put it, "provided that the sun rises in the West, the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit."
Committe to vote on health bill Tuesday!
Washington: The Senate's top Democrat on Thursday accused Republicans of strategy of "distortion, distractions and deception" on health care as he announced a pivotal committee will vote next week on a comprehensive bill.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Finance Committee will vote Tuesday on a 10- year, $829 billion proposal that would expand coverage to 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the federal deficit. A positive cost report on the legislation Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office marked a turning point for its main author, Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
After announcing plans for the vote, Reid said Republican have no health plan to offer and are only trying to obstruct. "Just as Democrats believe in ensuring quality, affordable care for every American citizen, we believe equally as strongly that this country has no place for those who wish for it or its leaders to fail," he said.
Senate Republican Leader Mich McConnell of Kentucky dismissed the news on costs and coverage as "irrelevant," saying Democrats would pump up the Baucus bill as it proceeds through Congress.
"What matters is that the final bill will cost about $1 trillion, vastly expand the role of government in people's health care decisions and limit choice, " he said.
In the House, Democrats cut $84 billion from their proposed health care surtax on high-income Americans, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said Thursday.
He said the new tax proposal would apply to people earning at least $500,000 and would raise $460 billion over the next decade. The Democrats earlier tax proposal would have raised $544 billion.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said she is considering adding a windfall profits tax on health insurance companies to he House Democratic bill.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Finance Committee will vote Tuesday on a 10- year, $829 billion proposal that would expand coverage to 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the federal deficit. A positive cost report on the legislation Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office marked a turning point for its main author, Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
After announcing plans for the vote, Reid said Republican have no health plan to offer and are only trying to obstruct. "Just as Democrats believe in ensuring quality, affordable care for every American citizen, we believe equally as strongly that this country has no place for those who wish for it or its leaders to fail," he said.
Senate Republican Leader Mich McConnell of Kentucky dismissed the news on costs and coverage as "irrelevant," saying Democrats would pump up the Baucus bill as it proceeds through Congress.
"What matters is that the final bill will cost about $1 trillion, vastly expand the role of government in people's health care decisions and limit choice, " he said.
In the House, Democrats cut $84 billion from their proposed health care surtax on high-income Americans, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said Thursday.
He said the new tax proposal would apply to people earning at least $500,000 and would raise $460 billion over the next decade. The Democrats earlier tax proposal would have raised $544 billion.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said she is considering adding a windfall profits tax on health insurance companies to he House Democratic bill.
TAX THE SICK: OBAMA'S NEW PLAN
According to Dick Morris and Eileen Mc Gann:
Faced with a need to scrounge for revenue to fund his plan for health care, President Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus have come up with a brilliant new idea: Tax the sick!
In a new amendment to the health care bill, they propose to limit the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes.
Now, taxpayers may deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income. Obama and Baucus want to raise that threshold to 10% as long as the taxpayeris under 65.
Eight million American are sick enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!
For a family earning $75,000 a year and facing out-of -pocket medicals bills of $7,500, this proposal would cost them about $600 a year in extra taxes.
And let's remenber who it is that they are taxing. This propsal affects people whose incomes are so limited and whose medical costs are so high that they excced 7.5% of their pre-tax income.
Their proposal literally hopes to raise $20 billion over ten years by taxing sick people.
The Democrats defend their proposal by saying that it would discourage health care spending.
But nobody deliberately spends 7.5% of their income on medical costs unless they are pretty sick and needy.
Obama and Baucus have single out the sickest among the middle class for this heinous tax. (The poor will not have to pay it because they re elegible for Medicaid). Originally, the Democrats continued their war on the elderly by proposing to tax everyone who spendsmore than 7.5% thershold on medical costs. But they retreated when it became clear that six million elderly would be hit with the tax. Now they just sock it to eight million sick, midle income Americans.
This tax, and the desire to cut Medicare and Medical by $500 billion, makes Obama and Baucus unlike any Democrats I have ever known. Democrats, at least when i worked for Clinton, defended the elderly and the sick rather than cut the former and tax latter
Faced with a need to scrounge for revenue to fund his plan for health care, President Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus have come up with a brilliant new idea: Tax the sick!
In a new amendment to the health care bill, they propose to limit the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes.
Now, taxpayers may deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income. Obama and Baucus want to raise that threshold to 10% as long as the taxpayeris under 65.
Eight million American are sick enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!
For a family earning $75,000 a year and facing out-of -pocket medicals bills of $7,500, this proposal would cost them about $600 a year in extra taxes.
And let's remenber who it is that they are taxing. This propsal affects people whose incomes are so limited and whose medical costs are so high that they excced 7.5% of their pre-tax income.
Their proposal literally hopes to raise $20 billion over ten years by taxing sick people.
The Democrats defend their proposal by saying that it would discourage health care spending.
But nobody deliberately spends 7.5% of their income on medical costs unless they are pretty sick and needy.
Obama and Baucus have single out the sickest among the middle class for this heinous tax. (The poor will not have to pay it because they re elegible for Medicaid). Originally, the Democrats continued their war on the elderly by proposing to tax everyone who spendsmore than 7.5% thershold on medical costs. But they retreated when it became clear that six million elderly would be hit with the tax. Now they just sock it to eight million sick, midle income Americans.
This tax, and the desire to cut Medicare and Medical by $500 billion, makes Obama and Baucus unlike any Democrats I have ever known. Democrats, at least when i worked for Clinton, defended the elderly and the sick rather than cut the former and tax latter
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE STILL A WORTHY GOAL
By legislating away our freedoms through goverment, health insurance and big pharma make sure that they remain very healthy at the expense of taxpayers and the public good.
Proposals before Congress have nothing to do with health care, reforms or health care access. They are about "insuring" large profits for pharma and insurance companies off the backs or average Americans. If this risky invesment fails, we will pay for that as well, so there is no incentive for responsivility or to provide the product for which we are being forced to pay.
How is this market driving capitalism? If insurance companies are taken out of the equation and health care becomes what it should be, between an individual's choice and the individual provider of their choice, then costs will come down. There are no "market" forces when monopolies legislate away competition.
Both major parties sell our liberties to the not-so-highest bidder to fund their election campaigns. It is irresponsible to blame either party for what stinks in this bill.
President Obama's original intent for health care is what the majority of Americans who voted for him wanted, universal health care, not universal subsidies for unwanted or undersired health care insurance.
Proposals before Congress have nothing to do with health care, reforms or health care access. They are about "insuring" large profits for pharma and insurance companies off the backs or average Americans. If this risky invesment fails, we will pay for that as well, so there is no incentive for responsivility or to provide the product for which we are being forced to pay.
How is this market driving capitalism? If insurance companies are taken out of the equation and health care becomes what it should be, between an individual's choice and the individual provider of their choice, then costs will come down. There are no "market" forces when monopolies legislate away competition.
Both major parties sell our liberties to the not-so-highest bidder to fund their election campaigns. It is irresponsible to blame either party for what stinks in this bill.
President Obama's original intent for health care is what the majority of Americans who voted for him wanted, universal health care, not universal subsidies for unwanted or undersired health care insurance.
PROMISE FOR A FUTURE SUSCESS OR CURRENT PERFORMANCE?He may have been chosen more for his eloquence than his accomplishments.
The most obvious inference, of course, is that President Obama if he was not chosen simply because he occupies the White House and is not George W. Bush was chosen more for his aspirations and his eloquent words than his accomplishments during eight months in office.
THE "WHITE COAT BRIGADE"
Presidente Barack Obama went so far as to pass out white coasts for the doctors photo health coverage for everyone seems just plain stupid. Everything is not just black and white.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
10 health care commandments
Put focus on greater acces, managing costs, not income redistribution.
The health care debate needs leaders who understand human nature, our Constitution and the economics of health care delivery. The debate needs to be about improving acces and managing costs rather than a discussion on population management or forced redistrbution of income.
Here is my attempt to start that deliberte, rational conversation with 10 commandments for health care reform:
1.- Patients should always be free to choose their own doctor, hospital, and treatment plan.
The patient and physician, working together in trusted collaboration, should make all decisions about their care.
2.- Patient privacy cannot be commpromised.
3.- The patient/doctor relationship is confidential and personal. It should never be regulatd by outside agencies.
4.- Patients have the right to privately contract with any physician, provider, health care facility, or vendor that provides health-related materials. Fee schedules and price lists should be readily available.
5.- Actuarial risk is the business of payers, not health care providers. Insures should assume the actuarial risk of those with pre-existing conditions by setting up high-risk pools. Insurers should make available basic catastrophic, hospital-only insurance.
6.- Payment of benefits is between the payer (i.e. the insurance provider, whether public or private) and the insured. Payment for services should be between the patient and the doctor, hospital or other provider.
The two should not be mixed.
7.- Any tax benefit provided for purchasing of health care or health insurance should accrue to the individual patien/insured. Employers should be allowed to contribute to their employees' health benefit without tax implications. Insurance contracts should remain under the jurisdiction of the state where purchased, and insurance should be able to be purchased across state lines.
8.- There shall be no mandates.
9.- Just as patients are entitled to justice if they are injured, doctors and caregivers should be adequately protected from lawsuit abuse.
10.- The patient should determine quality of health care.
Standars of care should remain at the discretion of speciality organizations, not the goverment, and should be published and available to all patients. Physicians within that speciality network should do peer review exclusively and confidentially.
The first four commandments address patients rights to privacy and to privately contract in a transparent marketplace and theirright to choose their doctor and care strategy.
The current health care delivery system is expensive, redundant and blind to the conumer and the providers. When the marketplace becomes transparant, patients can make valid choices based on value, costs will be contained and acces increased. maintaining a trusting relationship with the foundation necessary for allowing patients to make valued medical decisions.
Quality can only be determined by our patients in a competitive and open market.
Commandments Five and Six address the confusing way health care services payments are managed. The insurance contract must remain bettween the insured and the insurer. By triangulating the transaction, control has moved to the payer, adding both confusion and cost to every transaction. Moreover, the problem of the uninsured cannot be solved until we provide Americans with a product that they want to buy. Young adults are not interested in buying a benefit package that includes fertility treatments and bifocals. Basic catastrophic, hospital-only care (preferably with a Health Saving Account) should be offered in an efficient insurance marketplace.
Commandments Seven and Eigth deal with mandates and regulations that interfere with the free market. Insurers should be allowed to sell plans across state lines, and, rather than giving employers tax breaks for providing insurance to employees, we should motivate individuals to purchase their own health insurance and health care with the appropriate incentives and tax breaks.
Finally, commandments Nine and 10 refer to the need for doctors to do better job of policing ourselves and protecting our patients safety. Mistakes will be made, but we must develop a fair system that balances the need to reduce frivolous lawsuits that lead to unnecessary tests and expensive malpractice insurance.
The health care debate needs leaders who understand human nature, our Constitution and the economics of health care delivery. The debate needs to be about improving acces and managing costs rather than a discussion on population management or forced redistrbution of income.
Here is my attempt to start that deliberte, rational conversation with 10 commandments for health care reform:
1.- Patients should always be free to choose their own doctor, hospital, and treatment plan.
The patient and physician, working together in trusted collaboration, should make all decisions about their care.
2.- Patient privacy cannot be commpromised.
3.- The patient/doctor relationship is confidential and personal. It should never be regulatd by outside agencies.
4.- Patients have the right to privately contract with any physician, provider, health care facility, or vendor that provides health-related materials. Fee schedules and price lists should be readily available.
5.- Actuarial risk is the business of payers, not health care providers. Insures should assume the actuarial risk of those with pre-existing conditions by setting up high-risk pools. Insurers should make available basic catastrophic, hospital-only insurance.
6.- Payment of benefits is between the payer (i.e. the insurance provider, whether public or private) and the insured. Payment for services should be between the patient and the doctor, hospital or other provider.
The two should not be mixed.
7.- Any tax benefit provided for purchasing of health care or health insurance should accrue to the individual patien/insured. Employers should be allowed to contribute to their employees' health benefit without tax implications. Insurance contracts should remain under the jurisdiction of the state where purchased, and insurance should be able to be purchased across state lines.
8.- There shall be no mandates.
9.- Just as patients are entitled to justice if they are injured, doctors and caregivers should be adequately protected from lawsuit abuse.
10.- The patient should determine quality of health care.
Standars of care should remain at the discretion of speciality organizations, not the goverment, and should be published and available to all patients. Physicians within that speciality network should do peer review exclusively and confidentially.
The first four commandments address patients rights to privacy and to privately contract in a transparent marketplace and theirright to choose their doctor and care strategy.
The current health care delivery system is expensive, redundant and blind to the conumer and the providers. When the marketplace becomes transparant, patients can make valid choices based on value, costs will be contained and acces increased. maintaining a trusting relationship with the foundation necessary for allowing patients to make valued medical decisions.
Quality can only be determined by our patients in a competitive and open market.
Commandments Five and Six address the confusing way health care services payments are managed. The insurance contract must remain bettween the insured and the insurer. By triangulating the transaction, control has moved to the payer, adding both confusion and cost to every transaction. Moreover, the problem of the uninsured cannot be solved until we provide Americans with a product that they want to buy. Young adults are not interested in buying a benefit package that includes fertility treatments and bifocals. Basic catastrophic, hospital-only care (preferably with a Health Saving Account) should be offered in an efficient insurance marketplace.
Commandments Seven and Eigth deal with mandates and regulations that interfere with the free market. Insurers should be allowed to sell plans across state lines, and, rather than giving employers tax breaks for providing insurance to employees, we should motivate individuals to purchase their own health insurance and health care with the appropriate incentives and tax breaks.
Finally, commandments Nine and 10 refer to the need for doctors to do better job of policing ourselves and protecting our patients safety. Mistakes will be made, but we must develop a fair system that balances the need to reduce frivolous lawsuits that lead to unnecessary tests and expensive malpractice insurance.
Obama's Medicine
I am against Obamacare. I feel like this is being shoved down or thoats. I do not want anything passed in the dark of night without the chance to review it.
You cannot believe any of the commercials, newscaters and certaninly not our elected officials. This is not an emergency. The bill will cost us trillions of dollars, and we should take some time and do it properly. The president was on a recent commercial saying how wonderfull Medicare was and then saying his new plan would not limit your coverage when you get sick.
However, Medicare does have limits. When you use up your hospital benefits in a certain year you can use your "life-time reserve days." After that you are not covered.
Some idiot congressmen say "Republicans want you to die early," and some senators say "the First Amendment does not protect you when you lie," and some say there is nothing wrong with the president sending warnings to insurance companies telling them not to comunicate with their subscribers about the benefits they will lose under the proposed legislation. They all act like a bunch of sixth-graders.
If politicians think our helth care quality will not decline when the maximum payment to doctors and hospitals will be the current Medicare and Medicaid pauments, they are delusional. Remenber the conditions atKing/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles?
The politicians who say this health care plan will not cost taxpayers a lot of money are either trying to fool us or themselves. Trying to push this through as an emergency using the "weapons-of -mass-health-care-reform" tactic won't work.
People need to know exactly what the program means to them personally on both a clinical and financial basis.
How can i tell my elected representatives how i feel when neither they, nor I, will be able to read the bill before it is voted on?
You cannot believe any of the commercials, newscaters and certaninly not our elected officials. This is not an emergency. The bill will cost us trillions of dollars, and we should take some time and do it properly. The president was on a recent commercial saying how wonderfull Medicare was and then saying his new plan would not limit your coverage when you get sick.
However, Medicare does have limits. When you use up your hospital benefits in a certain year you can use your "life-time reserve days." After that you are not covered.
Some idiot congressmen say "Republicans want you to die early," and some senators say "the First Amendment does not protect you when you lie," and some say there is nothing wrong with the president sending warnings to insurance companies telling them not to comunicate with their subscribers about the benefits they will lose under the proposed legislation. They all act like a bunch of sixth-graders.
If politicians think our helth care quality will not decline when the maximum payment to doctors and hospitals will be the current Medicare and Medicaid pauments, they are delusional. Remenber the conditions atKing/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles?
The politicians who say this health care plan will not cost taxpayers a lot of money are either trying to fool us or themselves. Trying to push this through as an emergency using the "weapons-of -mass-health-care-reform" tactic won't work.
People need to know exactly what the program means to them personally on both a clinical and financial basis.
How can i tell my elected representatives how i feel when neither they, nor I, will be able to read the bill before it is voted on?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
One of the best questions is: how is the Obama health care is going to work?
He is going to add more patients to health care; can we see the logic here, the logic here will be more patients and more doctors, but no more new doctors, so is not logic; is going to delayed the patients visits because more people in = delay (no doctors in).
He is going to add more patients to health care; can we see the logic here, the logic here will be more patients and more doctors, but no more new doctors, so is not logic; is going to delayed the patients visits because more people in = delay (no doctors in).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
