healthcare town halls near their end

floridafun wrote:sometimes things have to be explained in uncomparable ways to some folks tho

Did I miss the part where someone was explaining something?

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:sometimes things have to be explained in uncomparable ways to some folks tho

Did I miss the part where someone was explaining something?

is this a situation where your tryng to cross a bridge that isnt there? i was making a comment about what pez said and what bman said. the whole car insurance vs health insurance stuff in general.

floridafun wrote:

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:sometimes things have to be explained in uncomparable ways to some folks tho

Did I miss the part where someone was explaining something?

is this a situation where your tryng to cross a bridge that isnt there? i was making a comment about what pez said and what bman said. the whole car insurance vs health insurance stuff in general.

Sorry, I forgot my smiley. No aggression intended. I was making a comment about your comment that someone was trying to explain incomparable things. I saw Bman's response as the tangent builder, not the explaingineer.

meta i didnt intend for that to be a bitch-out..i am one of your fans

floridafun wrote:meta i didnt intend for that to be a bitch-out..i am one of your fans

hehe, "bitch-out" sound so HOT when you say it!

Fighter59 wrote:$900 billion is a pipe dream. The insurance companies are salavating over this. They'll cherry pick the young healthy adults and send the rest to the public plan. They'll make millions.

the great insurance companies are salivating? thats rabies your seeing, not greedy optimism. they will cherry pick who they will deem to cover??? the other options, primarily non-profit, will get a dramatic overflow of people unwilling to pay exorberant rates for nothing better than other folks get for a fraction of the cost? the insurance companies will do 1 of 2 things. fail, OR start functioning in a successful playing field be cutting their parachute profits and become competetive with the public option and the other non profit options.

the time is now. tune in tonite for a reality check

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Pez wrote:How is the government forcing you to buy health insurance different than the government forcing you to buy car insurance?

Completely different. Car insurance is mandatory to protect other drivers. We could make it comparable to the proposed health insurance by saying everyone is required to have collision or comprehensive insurance.

And a human body is incapable of carrying the Black Plague or a "killer" H1N1 Flu?

talk about damage...

So that's what universal healthcare is about? Making sure them sick ones don't infest the rest of us? And here I thought it was helping the poor uninsured.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Pez wrote:How is the government forcing you to buy health insurance different than the government forcing you to buy car insurance?

Completely different. Car insurance is mandatory to protect other drivers. We could make it comparable to the proposed health insurance by saying everyone is required to have collision or comprehensive insurance.

And a human body is incapable of carrying the Black Plague or a "killer" H1N1 Flu?

talk about damage...

So that's what universal healthcare is about? Making sure them sick ones don't infest the rest of us? And here I thought it was helping the poor uninsured.

partly..just like insurance and ama and pharm were up until the last decate and a half. uhh gonna watch the speech tonite mark? i am hoping you will. i think it will address alot of questions. oh and on the transparency thing..i heard on npr in last couple days someone explaining that AFTER this is voted in, thats when the c-span hearings will begin. when they are hammering out specific details on what is actually an approved law rather than speculating on what might law will be. i hope so because that has been a little thorn in my side!

What is interesting to me is that there is so much disinformation on both sides of the argument. What I cant figure out is that boht side seem to know this and both sides seem to spew vitriol in offense against their opponents postion, rather than in defense of their own. It no longer seems to matter what you think, but rather it matters how deftly you can dissect the opinion of someone you dont agree with.

I cant understand what happened... Anyone who brings up something like "death camps for granny" or "indoctrination of my children" barely even deserves to call themselves an American. People arent thinking for themselves anymore... The liberals are blindly in love with Obama who is making political mistakes, the conservatives are exhuming Macarthy.

I dont know how this gets fixed.

It boils down to this for me, it is not about taxes, it is not about govt control it is about someone's life ... we have no choice but to insure everyone and make sure every one gets the best care possible. Someone should not have to know there is a treatment out there but can't afford it ...

Pez wrote:What is interesting to me is that there is so much disinformation on both sides of the argument. What I cant figure out is that boht side seem to know this and both sides seem to spew vitriol in offense against their opponents postion, rather than in defense of their own. It no longer seems to matter what you think, but rather it matters how deftly you can dissect the opinion of someone you dont agree with.

I cant understand what happened... Anyone who brings up something like "death camps for granny" or "indoctrination of my children" barely even deserves to call themselves an American. People arent thinking for themselves anymore... The liberals are blindly in love with Obama who is making political mistakes, the conservatives are exhuming Macarthy.

I dont know how this gets fixed.

I agree with you 100%. This country is on steep slide downhill. It does not matter which side is in office because there is too much divide.

floridafun wrote:uhh gonna watch the speech tonite mark? i am hoping you will. i think it will address alot of questions.

Shoot, I was not home. Maybe I can catch the next one.

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:uhh gonna watch the speech tonite mark? i am hoping you will. i think it will address alot of questions.

Shoot, I was not home. Maybe I can catch the next one.

Typical ... ignore the facts.

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:uhh gonna watch the speech tonite mark? i am hoping you will. i think it will address alot of questions.

Shoot, I was not home. Maybe I can catch the next one.

Typical ... ignore the facts.

I suppose now you're going to tell us that EVERYTHING that comes out of BHO's mouth is the gospel truth. And even thought he is our President, he is not a politician. Have another latte............

LTRT wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:uhh gonna watch the speech tonite mark? i am hoping you will. i think it will address alot of questions.

Shoot, I was not home. Maybe I can catch the next one.

Typical ... ignore the facts.

I suppose now you're going to tell us that EVERYTHING that comes out of BHO's mouth is the gospel truth. And even thought he is our President, he is not a politician. Have another latte............

Keep believing Palin's death panels and Congressman Wilson that illegals will be covered. LOL Definitely the facts hurt your case.

Until he writes the bill himself and submits it to congress he can't guarantee anything he said last night. I would have much better faith in what he said if he was to submit a bill to congress. I was glad to see tort reform back on the table. It will probably do more to keep physicians around and health care cost under control than most things. I still believe it will cost more than what they think. The prescription plan Bush got passed exceed costs given by the CBO.

Overall not a bad speech.

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:uhh gonna watch the speech tonite mark? i am hoping you will. i think it will address alot of questions.

Shoot, I was not home. Maybe I can catch the next one.

Typical ... ignore the facts.

Glad you know what I was doing that prevented me from watching it.

Bman wrote:

LTRT wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:uhh gonna watch the speech tonite mark? i am hoping you will. i think it will address alot of questions.

Shoot, I was not home. Maybe I can catch the next one.

Typical ... ignore the facts.

I suppose now you're going to tell us that EVERYTHING that comes out of BHO's mouth is the gospel truth. And even thought he is our President, he is not a politician. Have another latte............

Keep believing Palin's death panels and Congressman Wilson that illegals will be covered. LOL Definitely the facts hurt your case.

And keep believing he's the answer to solving all our problems.

I have a confession to make. I got to watch some of the speech last night. I heard the "lie" yeller. Then my wife got home and started foaming at the mouth and I turned it off.

Extreme conservative talk radio is intoxicating and it's difficult to live with.

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

From the speech:
"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."

So now all of a sudden they propose to do something about wasteful spending. Why hasn't this been done before? To think we can just wave the magic wand and poof, everything's okay, well I guess some think that.

LTRT wrote:"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

From the speech:
"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."

So now all of a sudden they propose to do something about wasteful spending. Why hasn't this been done before? To think we can just wave the magic wand and poof, everything's okay, well I guess some think that.

Ha! Found it!

I detect your skeptical tone. Sounds pretty straightforward. He can't do anything until congress passes a plan that allow the administration to reduce wasteful spending. Reform is necessary for this. Not all that shocking of a statement IMO.

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

From the speech:
"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."

So now all of a sudden they propose to do something about wasteful spending. Why hasn't this been done before? To think we can just wave the magic wand and poof, everything's okay, well I guess some think that.

Ha! Found it!

I detect your skeptical tone. Sounds pretty straightforward. He can't do anything until congress passes a plan that allow the administration to reduce wasteful spending. Reform is necessary for this. Not all that shocking of a statement IMO.

"skeptical"...why yes, but please don't call me a teabaggin', fear-mongering, racist.

LTRT wrote:"skeptical"...why yes, but please don't call me a teabaggin', fear-mongering, racist.

[gasp] Why would anyone do such a thing?

Scooby01_98 wrote:Until he writes the bill himself and submits it to congress he can't guarantee anything he said last night. I would have much better faith in what he said if he was to submit a bill to congress. I was glad to see tort reform back on the table. It will probably do more to keep physicians around and health care cost under control than most things. I still believe it will cost more than what they think. The prescription plan Bush got passed exceed costs given by the CBO.

Overall not a bad speech.

glad you watched. i always listened to the speeches of a prez whether i agreed with him or not. but---the prez should write the bill and submit to congress? i think it could then be something that can easily be completely overturned by the next prez. thats why congress needs to write it and push it thru. which they--those who want progress anyway--are willing and eager to do.

the cbo..i am not the only one suspicious of their numbers..based on their history.

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/08/30/cbo-wrong-on-health-care-reform-cost-numbers/

In the first, in the early eighties, Congress adjusted the way in which Medicare would pay hospitals-under the new law paying a fixed amount per admission based upon primary medical condition. “CBO predicted that by 1986 total spending would be $60 billion. Actual spending in 1986 was $49 billion.”

That’s $11 billion on 60. That’s wrong by more than 18%.

In the second, Commonwealth Fund reports that Gabel “found that savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which changed the way skilled nursing facilities and home health services were reimbursed under Medicare, turned out to be 50 percent greater in 1998 and 113 percent greater in 1999 than the budget office forecast.”

Wrong by 50% and by 113%.

In the third, Commonwealth Fund reports that “CBO predicted that drug prices would rise following the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which added prescription drug benefits to Medicare, estimating that spending on the drug benefit would be $206 billion. Actual spending was nearly 40 percent less than that, Gabel found.”

Wrong by nearly 40%.

Combining the error rates for the two years stated in regard to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, that’s three major Health Reform changes with an average error rate of more than 46%. That’s nearly half. Wrong by nearly half.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2009/07/24/news/local/6055fa2e045c9800862575fd0014b3a2.txt

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin scolded the Congressional Budget Office for not including savings from wellness and prevention measures he put in health care reform legislation, a decision, he said, that artificially raises the plan's cost.

"They're nuts," the Iowa Democrat said Thursday about the CBO not including "mega billions" in savings that could be realized from counseling people who are pre-diabetic, for example, and providing follow-up care and monitoring.

Medicare and private insurance will pay more than $30,000 to amputate a diabetic's foot, but the CBO won't include the savings that would be realized if that was prevented by a few hundred dollars of dietary counseling, Harkin said.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090708/REG/307089957

Medicare an example of how wrong CBO can be
Regarding "Revised HELP bill estimated at over $611 billion":

If history repeats itself, the Congressional Budget Office will price this program the same as they priced Title 18 Medicare. In the mid-1960s, they underwrote a program that paid hospitals on a cost-plus basis, covered nursing homes and paid doctors at the 90th percentile of range of charges.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/jul/29/healthcare-congressional-budget-office-cost

Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit -— by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBO's estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. That's right: In the BBA's first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Wrong+data-a010709704

According to the table, the wealthiest 1 per cent of American families saw their average real income expand 94.2 per cent between 1977 and 1990, to $548,970. Capital gains appears to be the fastest growing source, up a whopping 171.3 per cent over a period when stock-market averages, as measured by the Standard & Poor's composite stock index, grew only 58 per cent in real terms.

How did the wealthy do it? It turns out they had some help from the Congressional Budget OfficeThe Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is responsible for economic forecasting and fiscal policy analysis, scorekeeeping, cost projections, and an Annual Report on the Federal Budget. The office also underdakes special budget-related studies at the request of Congress.

Another, more subtle, statistical oversight enables the CBO to exaggerate the extent to which gains are concentrated in the upper-income brackets. In any given year many families find themselves in the top 1 per cent solely because of non-recurring capital gains. But income swelled by once-in-a-lifetime events like the sale of a business or a home is obviously not an accurate reflection of a family's long-term economic circumstances. Had the CBO simply taken capital gains out of income when ranking families, the distribution of gains would have appeared far less concentrated among the "wealthy."

Because CBO data are used to "score" or estimate the cost of policy changes, statistical coverups can have wide-ranging effects. Representative Dick Armey (R., Tex.) recently brought to our attention the case of a former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee who, in 1988, requested that the CBO study the impact of a 50 per cent increase in the minimum wage. The CBO's preliminary report indicated that such an increase would eliminate as many as half a million jobs. The chairman then requested that this finding be deleted from the final report; the CBO graciously obliged.

LTRT wrote:"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

From the speech:
"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."

So now all of a sudden they propose to do something about wasteful spending. Why hasn't this been done before? To think we can just wave the magic wand and poof, everything's okay, well I guess some think that.

obama has said since the primaries the savings from correcting current practices would pay for a big portion of new healthcare costs. alot of dems are wondering why something wasnt done in the last 8 years on the issue. joining us?