DescentBB

\"I explained during the press conference with Rep. Slaughter how the industry funnels millions of its policyholders' premiums to big public relations firms that provide talking points to conservative talk show hosts, business groups and politicians. I also described how the PR firms set up front groups, again using your premium dollars and mine, to scare people away from reform.\"


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/ ... index.html

Bee

All industries spend their income on lobbying for their own interest, including billions of dollars spent to lobby DEMOCRAT politicians to achieve things like trial lawyers not being regulated (torte reform) the result of which is very high insurance premiums because doctors are being sued in frivolous lawsuits etc. etc.

Why do you think they wrote \"using your premium dollars and mine\"? It is obvious, to imply that the insurance company is stealing or misusing money that doesn't belong to them when in fact your premium become THEIR income as soon as you pay your bill! They aren't just trying to inform you that the insurance company spends money on influencing legislation, they want ignorant and emotionally irrational voters to get all fired up thinking something illegal or immoral is going on!
Quite a bit of spin there and nothing new!

Personally I think insurance companies ARE immoral but you haven't found anything that isn't used by EVERY company on BOTH sides of the political spectrum but they are counting on you to only see the ones they point out to you. Are you willing to live the role of some party's stooge?

It's THE GAME that is wrong not just one of the teams....

W.R. wrote:Personally I think insurance companies ARE immoral but you haven't found anything that isn't used by EVERY company on BOTH sides of the political spectrum but they are counting on you to only see the ones they point out to you. Are you willing to live the role of some party's stooge?

It's THE GAME that is wrong not just one of the teams....

I don't think any democrat believes their leaders are saints.

Though I don't blame the politicians or the companies, I think they are allowed to do what they do because the average American just doesn't pay attention. I do think our leaders are a reflection of us, so who is really at fault if we don't like what we see?

With all that, I think health care gets a different stage then almost every other issue. I think paying a politician money to get your enviornmental research grant, is not a good thing, and goes against the interests of the American people. It can often deny jobs to hard working Americans.

But I think paying a politician to, at the very least stall for a few months, so that they can squeeze as much money out of you as possible -- basically trying to figure out how much your life or health is really worth to you -- is just plain evil.

Health care should not exist on the capitalist stage. It's perfectly fine to scam someone out of a nice television; but not a life saving operation.

I don't have the anwsers on this one, but it is pretty damn clear if one compares comments of say Glen Beck with what he was saying just a few years (months?) ago, that the Man is bought sold and OWNED by some insurance corporation; and maybe its because talk-show conservatives are always just so flamboyant and confident in everything they say, but I am having a really hard time filtering the legitimate conservative criticisms of health care reform through the massive amount of bull ★■◆●.

I'm not hearing much of anything from conservatives on how they would improve affordability of health care/insurance.
Once it looked like Obama might not get it rammed through they just zeroed in on winning the political battle instead of working toward a better solution. Business as usual for politicians.

Now that Obama has blinked I'm guessing we won't see any kind of substantive changes made and I'm starting to wish Obama had succeeded. I wouldn't like the liberal takeover and social engineering that would come with it but at least then the other side would have to fight for a better system in order to correct things instead of simply preserving the status quo.

I'm contemplating sending my support to the democrats and letting my representatives know why.

The only reason our representatives aren't in jail is because they control the law, other than that they would never get away with the things they do. Fraud, extortion, theft, embezzlement, ,obstruction of justice, breach of contract, perjury, thousands of constitutional violations, bribery, etc. etc.

If ever there was a group that qualified for prosecution under the RICO Act it is our congress!

Will Robinson wrote:I'm not hearing much of anything from conservatives on how they would improve affordability of health care/insurance.
Once it looked like Obama might not get it rammed through they just zeroed in on winning the political battle instead of working toward a better solution. Business as usual for politicians.

Now that Obama has blinked I'm guessing we won't see any kind of substantive changes made and I'm starting to wish Obama had succeeded. I wouldn't like the liberal takeover and social engineering that would come with it but at least then the other side would have to fight for a better system in order to correct things instead of simply preserving the status quo.

I'm contemplating sending my support to the democrats and letting my representatives know why.

The only reason our representatives aren't in jail is because they control the law, other than that they would never get away with the things they do. Fraud, extortion, theft, embezzlement, ,obstruction of justice, breach of contract, perjury, thousands of constitutional violations, bribery, etc. etc.

If ever there was a group that qualified for prosecution under the RICO Act it is our congress!

And preserving the status quo is what I hate the most. One side wants to change the high cost and availability of health care, and the other side wants to keep it the same.

Big insurance wins.

Nice post..

Bettina

Hi bet, I haven't talked to you in awhile. I hope you've been doing well!

I would like to engage in discussions with you, but it seems that you are posting a lot of short posts with links. A longer post, conglemerating information from multiple sources, is a much better thing for all of us to share and talk about.

Often when we post one link, we end up getting knee jerk left. vs. right debates that go no where.

I suggest next thread reading a number of links (perhaps you did already and I have no idea, I don't wish to assume) and post a thread with simply your ideas and no outside sources, unless you require a reference for a fact.

I know you have your own ideas related to the article, we just will all understand them better when the words all come from you instead of an outside article.

Hope you are doing well..

Birdseye

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm not hearing much of anything from conservatives on how they would improve affordability of health care/insurance.
Once it looked like Obama might not get it rammed through they just zeroed in on winning the political battle instead of working toward a better solution. Business as usual for politicians.

Now that Obama has blinked I'm guessing we won't see any kind of substantive changes made and I'm starting to wish Obama had succeeded. I wouldn't like the liberal takeover and social engineering that would come with it but at least then the other side would have to fight for a better system in order to correct things instead of simply preserving the status quo.

I'm contemplating sending my support to the democrats and letting my representatives know why.

The only reason our representatives aren't in jail is because they control the law, other than that they would never get away with the things they do. Fraud, extortion, theft, embezzlement, ,obstruction of justice, breach of contract, perjury, thousands of constitutional violations, bribery, etc. etc.

If ever there was a group that qualified for prosecution under the RICO Act it is our congress!

And preserving the status quo is what I hate the most. One side wants to change the high cost and availability of health care, and the other side wants to keep it the same.

Big insurance wins.

Nice post..

Bettina

HOW is Obama lowering the cost? Insuring 47 million who can't afford health care? By definition, they aren't paying for it. And if the common citizen can't afford health care, as is the general consensus, who does that leave? The most successful people must pick up the tab again.

In a town hall a few days ago, Obama explicitly said this. Someone asked him the question of how it was going to be paid for. 1\\3 of it is going to be slashing tax exemptions for people making more then a quarter of a million. Specificly, tax exemptions on donations.

America donates more money than any other country. America's rich donate more money than any other people in the world. So we should remove motivation for them to do so?

the top 5% of America pays more then 90% of the taxes. Honestly, I'm tired of the 'Robin Hood' approach where we tax those who are sucessful, and give their money to those who haven't worked to get their own.

Yea Bee, the status quo really sucks…but sometimes it’s better than making things worse. (ok, it's always better)

I have heard a lot of good ideas regarding reforming health care…none of them are in the current bills.

Birdseye wrote:Hi bet, I haven't talked to you in awhile. I hope you've been doing well!

I would like to engage in discussions with you, but it seems that you are posting a lot of short posts with links. A longer post, conglemerating information from multiple sources, is a much better thing for all of us to share and talk about.

Often when we post one link, we end up getting knee jerk left. vs. right debates that go no where.

I suggest next thread reading a number of links (perhaps you did already and I have no idea, I don't wish to assume) and post a thread with simply your ideas and no outside sources, unless you require a reference for a fact.

I know you have your own ideas related to the article, we just will all understand them better when the words all come from you instead of an outside article.

Hope you are doing well..

Birdseye

Hi Birdseye.

You don't have to baby me. You can jump on me all you want. I know you've seen Cuda and I going at it but he's OK with me even though he's a disgruntled republican that happens to be dead wrong on everything.

To answer your questions, I have no answers. I have absolutely no idea how Obama is going to lower costs of health care and I'm certainly not smart enough to match wits with Obama's health team. I'm also not going to supply links because they don't work in
this forum unless you link to Fox, some republican blog, or YouTube. Even Factcheck.org doesn't work here so I've reduced myself to short sentences just to show my annoyance.

However, what I do know is that because my dad's an executive I never worried about paying for health insurance. He gets it for practically nothing and I get it free. In fact, I've never been in the real labor force or received a real paycheck. But, this isn't about me. It's about people I know personally who work ungodly hours yet had to drop their health coverage to pay their mortgage and buy food because the premiums were unaffordable. They can make it if no one gets sick.

I also know seniors who complain to me about paying hundreds of dollars a month for a small bottle of pills because their not allowed to buy them in Canada where the prices are much cheaper. There's nothing I can do for them. I can make them feel good about Jesus, but I can't explain to them why drug companies are making record profits...even in economic downturns.

I have no answers. I only have a little bell that I make a lot of noise with.

Bee

USA; Population, 2008 estimate : 304,059,724
USA; Population, Uninsured : 47,000,000
USA; Population, Insured : 257,059,724

Let's us not forget that the system isn't that broken in the first place or more would be uninsured. 47 million sound like a lot until you compare it to the actual numbers. Beside that 47 million include illegals and under insured. With nine to eleven million illegals that brings the number let's say 37 million uninsured. So of these how many have government paying their way?

Bee, I’m a 52 year old diabetic, without health insurance…

Just why to hell do you think I would be against health care reform? (I’m not btw)

You say you don’t have the answers…but you are sure it’s all the Republicans evil doing, that we won’t get reform.

You need to do better than that.

Maybe this reform just sucks…

Spidey wrote:Bee, I’m a 52 year old diabetic, without health insurance…

Just why to hell do you think I would be against health care reform? (I’m not btw)

You say you don’t have the answers…but you are sure it’s all the Republicans evil doing, that we won’t get reform.

You need to do better than that.

Maybe this reform just sucks…

Pardon me Spidey, I just want to barrow your post for a sec.

I'd like to point out the phase "Health Care reform". What this bill(s) are proposing is not Reform at all. It's a REPLACEMENT. Reform indicates taking something that already exists and modifies it into something deemed better. That means bolstering private healthcare and the companies there in. This bill will eventually dry up funds to those companies and make them go "poof". It might take a while, but in the end, the result is the same. Make no mistake, Obama wants the HMO's and pharmaceuticals out of buisness. I actually heard a clip of him addressing a Union gather of some kind where those words are used.

any rate... reform? naw.. i doubt it.

and to add what Spidey did post. Diabetes is crazy expensive if you don't have insurance. Even if you DO, it's expensive.

(thanks Spidey. )

Insurrectionist wrote:USA; Population, 2008 estimate : 304,059,724
USA; Population, Uninsured : 47,000,000
USA; Population, Insured : 257,059,724

Let's us not forget that the system isn't that broken in the first place or more would be uninsured. 47 million sound like a lot until you compare it to the actual numbers. Beside that 47 million include illegals and under insured. With nine to eleven million illegals that brings the number let's say 37 million uninsured. So of these how many have government paying their way?

Yes, but that is really a small piece of the problem.

The larger pieces are the continuously increasing costs, compounded with the amount of people who have insurence -- whom arn't covered for the health care they need when they need it.

The later category is what the Dems need to be focusing more on imo.

Gooberman wrote:

Insurrectionist wrote:USA; Population, 2008 estimate : 304,059,724
USA; Population, Uninsured : 47,000,000
USA; Population, Insured : 257,059,724

Let's us not forget that the system isn't that broken in the first place or more would be uninsured. 47 million sound like a lot until you compare it to the actual numbers. Beside that 47 million include illegals and under insured. With nine to eleven million illegals that brings the number let's say 37 million uninsured. So of these how many have government paying their way?

Yes, but that is really a small piece of the problem.

The larger pieces are the continuously increasing costs, compounded with the amount of people who have insurence -- whom arn't covered for the health care they need when they need it.

The later category is what the Dems need to be focusing more on imo.

Thas is why they need to work on tort reform instead.

The bottom line is...where does the money come from to pay for all this? What programs will be shorted to funnel money into the new health care plan. The worry is that a lot of the money will come from medicare/medicaid and thus Palins death panel reference worked so well. End of life care amounts to something like 80% of health care costs. Take any amount of dollars away from end of life care and something will have to be sacrificed.

So before any health care plan is implemented I want to know how the govt. plans on paying for it. We are already heading into a 3rd world scenario as our debt is already in the trillions. The last thing we need is another boondoggle program administered by the federal govt. as other have said, tort reform and allowing bulk purchases of generic drug from out of country is one way of reducing cost.

We really should be able to buy drugs from a world wide clearing house instead of having prices artificially protected by the drug companies lobbying of the government who controls the FDA.

You want drug X? Well the world market says the price is Y and your pharmacy can buy it at Y instead of having a special inflated price for American pharmacies.

This is a good thread. It's reinforced my opinions on health care reform.

The amercian health industry should go with this reform which could have the potential to evolve. A free healthcare system should be the overall goal. But since the cost will come from other government branches I think companies like google will step in to take over jobs like application processing. State level services can be unorganized and are almost always behind the times with communication technology. I've seen this for my self and spoke with 4 bosses about exactly this at state jobs I've had in the past. When ever there's a bottle neck or a system bug there are generally two options: outsource to fix the bug or higher hundreds of temp workers to get around the bug, though a terminal, and manually accept or process applications.

In short I can see government branches slowly turning to more automated methods to cut down on human labor costs. Working under U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and The Texas Department of Public Safety I always heard how they (the department) never had enough money. Maybe we should replace government branches with companies that will process our medical data for free at the cost of our privacy. Maybe our whole government system could be managed through automation.

well it seems that 60,000 seniors have dumped AARP since July 1 for their support of the heath-care overhaul

thats that this adds to the debate, just found it an intersting tid-bit

CUDA wrote:well it seems that 60,000 seniors have dumped AARP since July 1 for their support of the heath-care overhaul

thats that this adds to the debate, just found it an intersting tid-bit

Those were just republicans..

60,000 is nothing compared to the 40 million member total. In fact the article said that in that same period there were 1.5 million who renewed their memberships.

Sounds like they support health care overhaul.

Bee

Since you don’t want to answer my question, and I don’t mind it when people ignore me…but this is your thread.

Anyway, you should become a politician.

1. You don’t have the answers, but you know it’s all the other sides fault.
2. You never worked for a living, but you get your health care for free.
3. And you know how to avoid questions.

Perfect!

Bet51987 wrote:Sounds like they support health care overhaul.

Bee

not a very scientific conclusion

Spidey wrote:Since you don’t want to answer my question, and I don’t mind it when people ignore me…but this is your thread.

Anyway, you should become a politician.

1. You don’t have the answers, but you know it’s all the other sides fault.
2. You never worked for a living, but you get your health care for free.
3. And you know how to avoid questions.

Perfect!

Roflmao

Spidey wrote:Since you don’t want to answer my question, and I don’t mind it when people ignore me…but this is your thread.

Anyway, you should become a politician.

1. You don’t have the answers, but you know it’s all the other sides fault.
2. You never worked for a living, but you get your health care for free.
3. And you know how to avoid questions.

Perfect!

just a regular Nancy Pelosi in the making

Spidey wrote:Since you don’t want to answer my question, and I don’t mind it when people ignore me…but this is your thread.

Anyway, you should become a politician.

1. You don’t have the answers, but you know it’s all the other sides fault.
2. You never worked for a living, but you get your health care for free.
3. And you know how to avoid questions.

Perfect!

Sorry Spidey. I had to go back and look. I thought you were just making a frustrated comment. To answer you're question.. Since you don't have insurance I can safely guess you're not against health reform and the reason I'm so vocal about this is that I believe Obama is our last chance at any real change. This is my own personal opinion so I have no links.

It was very easy for me to pick sides. One side wants to help people get affordable health care and the other side wants to stop it. Guess which side I'm on.

I don't get a paycheck because I'm in college. When I'm not I take care of church business and my home. That's my job. Ask your wife if she did anything today.

P.S. Why don't you have insurance. What will you do if you need an expensive operation?


Bee

No, my question is…Why would a sick person without health insurance be against reform?

Forget the question…I will answer it myself…Because…This is the wrong kind of reform.

“P.S. Why don't you have insurance. What will you do if you need an expensive operation?”

Simple…I can’t afford it, and I reject the notion of handing my hard earned money over to a third party, so they can give me back some it, if I need care.

BTW, I was watching this guy from Aetna tonight on The News Hour, and they have no problem with the reform package, as long as it requires everyone to buy insurance.

Spidey wrote:This is the wrong kind of reform.

Your assumption is wrong. Any reform done at this point will be easier to change moving forward than adding more regulation to the current system. Any other kind of reform (what you're asking for) will mean cutting out insurance companies all together. What you want is something that will transition the easiest into the current system. Then it can change into what we really want, down the line. That might mean insurance companies die out.

Heh, I had a knee jerk reply all ready to go, then I thought…except for the “wrong assumptions” part, you are probably right…I sure as hell wouldn’t shed any tears if the health insurance companies became obsolete.

But I’m still not sure just what regulations you think I want.

Spidey wrote:But I’m still not sure just what regulations you think I want.

Easy: Fewer. But this thread is about a government branch. "Regulations", as they normally do, would cause more problems since the government can make poor business decisions, upon many complex unique business models. But they're halfway decent at making complex government branches.

Seems everyone is forget this has been on and off the table for more decades then I have been around.

Even Bush had a plan

Proponents/Opponents
Proponents say that Bush has taken rational steps that should eventually lead to lower costs. Pushing individuals into the private market, and giving them more influence over their own health care costs, will eventually lead to a more rational system where the incentives – e.g., lower premium costs – are in line with the overall goal of containing costs while providing quality care.
Opponents point out that Medicare Advantage coverage by private insurers is not more efficient -- it is costing about 12 percent more than the public plan. Critics also contend that the Bush Administration is lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies by not permitting either drug reimportation or negotiation of drug prices under Medicare Part D.

Source= http://www.reformplans.com/Plan-Briefs/ ... ation.html

Plan in Brief
Aims to make health insurance affordable so that everyone can buy it, but is not required to buy it. Mandates that all children have healthcare coverage.
Includes both a more competitive and regulated private system and an expanded public payer system.
Establishes a new public health insurance plan available to uninsured Americans as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.
Requires employers except for very small businesses and start-ups to contribute toward health coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan.
Expands eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Source= http://www.reformplans.com/Plan-Briefs/ ... Obama.html

Guess who is in the white house with big pharmaceutical companies Making deals to line the pocket of them big pharmaceutical companies.

So why do some people believe that one side doesn't want health care reform.

There are two sides of the \"health care\" question that need addressed:

1) The cost of individual health care procedures

2) The cost and availability of health coverage plans (which are misnamed \"insurance\")

The problems with (1) and the problems with (2) are sometimes related, and sometimes not. Confusion over which one we're talking about often leads to muddled debates.

On (1), there are a number of things that make health care procedures more expensive than they need to be:

- Medicare/Medicaid/other public programs make up close to half of all health care spending, and don't pay doctors enough to cover their expenses, so the other half of us have to pay extra

- Malpractice coverage is extremely expensive, but also extremely required

- Big Pharma makes record profits due to various regulations that keep lower-cost substitutes off of the market

- Various regulations require actual MDs to perform certain procedures that really don't require that much training (things like putting in stitches).

- Hospitals don't advertise prices, not even if you ask beforehand. You can't \"take your business elsewhere\" after you've already had your surgery or whatever, so they can charge absurd rates to those paying out-of-pocket. (They charge more sane rates to insurance, though.)

On (2), there are 47 million americans without health coverage plans, though most of them still receive health care, either paying for it out of pocket or at the expense of everyone else. There are various reasons some people don't have coverage:

- most health care plans are tied directly to a specific job. If your company doesn't offer a plan or offers a bad-but-expensive plan, you're screwed.

- health care plans NOT offered through an employer are subject to higher taxes than those that are. Why not tax it equally no matter where you get your health coverage?

- health insurance providers aren't able to compete across state lines. If there's a plan I want at a price I want in Oregon, I can't get it in Washington. I'm stuck with what my employer offers, and they're stuck with what only a couple of companies offer.

- some people are actually financially better off paying out-of-pocket. If health insurers provided actual catastrophic insurance (like, that kicks in at $10k or $100k or more, and that had really low premiums since it wouldn't be used for routine visits) a lot of people would pick it up and continue paying out-of-pocket for routine stuff.

Overall, in order to fix health care, we need to deal with both halves of the problem. I think strong free-market solutions would help in both cases. Remove barriers to competition among insurers, remove perverse incentives that tie insurance to jobs, allow people to buy health care plans that actually fit them... and at the same time, deal with excess costs generated by big pharma, malpractice insurance, medicare price-fixing, barriers to marketplace entry, etc.

The Obama \"reforms\" don't seem to be doing these things, and I'm going to criticize them regardless of what companies are funneling how much money to what PR firms (on both sides!)

(A friend of mine linked me to http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... re_reform/ which makes some of the same points as this post.)

Lothar wrote:There are two sides of the "health care" question that need addressed:.....

That was a good post, good article, and good link, especially this part which I believe.


Both posts are worth reading in full. And as for the proposals on the table, I think that Wyden-Bennett is a superior plan for reform than the current House bill, though I don’t think that Wynden-Bennett is politically feasible. This is largely because the Republicans in Congress have dug in their heels so deep that they’ve made themselves not players anymore. You’ll notice that the big debate is not between Republicans and Democrats, but rather between liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats. I think that if Wyden-Bennett got some more, serious support from the GOP, it would stand a better chance. As it stands now, though, I don’t think that’s the case, so we’re stuck with the House bill which, as bad as it is, is still better than the status quo.




Unfortunately I doubt anyone here will read it because of this... which I also believe.


"One of the great side-effects of Obama's being in the White House is that all the Rethuglican Kooks are coming out and showing themselves for what they really are. No longer can they hide behind things like "compassionate conservativism" or "fiscal responsibility"".`

Bee

Anybody who believes “politicians” (mostly lawyers) should be writing health care reform, must be crazy or something in the first place.

They should burn all the current bills, and let the people who run some of the clinics around the country, that actually provide lower cost quality health care, write the reform.

Obama is encouraging people to \"go talk to your nieghbors, tell them the truth about health care reform\".

He is telling people to go tell the truth about something that he either lies about or is woefully ignorant about.

Here's a tidbit from an article on him trying to explain his plan:

For example, asked at the Portsmouth town hall how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:

“If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”

Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser, Larry Summers?

Capitalism Explained

Government programs aren’t self-sustaining by definition. They’re subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we’d be off the hook.

(from here)

Is he really that stupid? He thinks the government funded plan won't be an unfair competitor that puts private industry out of business 'because the government run programs will be self sustaining just like the private ones'!?!?

Why is it that the media is watching this guy like the townspeople in The Emperor Has No Clothes?
They are afraid (or unwilling) to point out he has no idea, we have to read opinion pieces or opposition party releases to see real examination of Obama and his \"plan\"!
The mainstream media is not doing it's job that I can see. It's obvious Obama simply wants to get the camels nose under the tent in the form of passing something/anything broad and unspecific and then he can tweak this awful legislation to serve his greater purpose.

heh. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ..............................

I think what annoys me more than anything is the fact the those on the left in general and on this forum in particular want to shout. \"its all the republicans fault, they should just agree and pass this healthcare reform\". but the facts of the matter are, is that the DNC can pass this without the GOP's help the GOP CANNOT STOP ANYTHING, the house and senate have filibuster proof majorities. if this is such a great plan then why doesnt the DNC pass this crap and get on with it?

If you don't think that federal health care is dangerous? Watch THIS video and read the story.

Is short, here in Oregon a woman was denied chemo by the state but was told they would pay for her assisted suicide ... which she did not request.

You don't think will happen with the nation health care package as it stands now? Think again. It's a matter of dollars and cents.

Lothar wrote:There are two sides of the "health care" question that need addressed:

1) The cost of individual health care procedures

2) The cost and availability of health coverage plans (which are misnamed "insurance")

The problems with (1) and the problems with (2) are sometimes related, and sometimes not. Confusion over which one we're talking about often leads to muddled debates.

On (1), there are a number of things that make health care procedures more expensive than they need to be:

- Medicare/Medicaid/other public programs make up close to half of all health care spending, and don't pay doctors enough to cover their expenses, so the other half of us have to pay extra

- Malpractice coverage is extremely expensive, but also extremely required

- Big Pharma makes record profits due to various regulations that keep lower-cost substitutes off of the market

- Various regulations require actual MDs to perform certain procedures that really don't require that much training (things like putting in stitches).

- Hospitals don't advertise prices, not even if you ask beforehand. You can't "take your business elsewhere" after you've already had your surgery or whatever, so they can charge absurd rates to those paying out-of-pocket. (They charge more sane rates to insurance, though.)

On (2), there are 47 million americans without health coverage plans, though most of them still receive health care, either paying for it out of pocket or at the expense of everyone else. There are various reasons some people don't have coverage:

- most health care plans are tied directly to a specific job. If your company doesn't offer a plan or offers a bad-but-expensive plan, you're screwed.

- health care plans NOT offered through an employer are subject to higher taxes than those that are. Why not tax it equally no matter where you get your health coverage?

- health insurance providers aren't able to compete across state lines. If there's a plan I want at a price I want in Oregon, I can't get it in Washington. I'm stuck with what my employer offers, and they're stuck with what only a couple of companies offer.

- some people are actually financially better off paying out-of-pocket. If health insurers provided actual catastrophic insurance (like, that kicks in at $10k or $100k or more, and that had really low premiums since it wouldn't be used for routine visits) a lot of people would pick it up and continue paying out-of-pocket for routine stuff.

Overall, in order to fix health care, we need to deal with both halves of the problem. I think strong free-market solutions would help in both cases. Remove barriers to competition among insurers, remove perverse incentives that tie insurance to jobs, allow people to buy health care plans that actually fit them... and at the same time, deal with excess costs generated by big pharma, malpractice insurance, medicare price-fixing, barriers to marketplace entry, etc.

The Obama "reforms" don't seem to be doing these things, and I'm going to criticize them regardless of what companies are funneling how much money to what PR firms (on both sides!)

(A friend of mine linked me to http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... re_reform/ which makes some of the same points as this post.)

Kudos to you Lothar. Agree on every point.

Lothar wrote: Smart Stuff

Agree Completely

Ignore the above post, for some biazzare reason I can't edit or delete it.