Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Just a hunch, were his proposals even in the same stratosphere as the Congressional plan? Some were, some weren't. He certainly wasn't an Obama mouthpiece, and was a little miffed that he wasn't being listened to more by the politicians. Obviously as head of the Mayo clinic he knows a ton about the industry, and he's a very polished and good spokesman for his views. His main point, to me, was two fold: 1] It's stupid to say we have to "fix the system" because there isn't and never has been a system. It's all a clusterfukk and has been all along. But he seemed to say the whole thing can be rethought of without just throwing everything out and starting over. 2] The overhaul will take a generation although he didn't use that word. It's very long term. He said we need to make changes in steps, and that we were "basically" going about it the right way. What we should do immediately is get everyone insured, and (IIRC) fix the way payments are made. Get that done right now. He seemed to like a lot of the things that are in the plans that no one is talking about. He was big on IT, too, especially with regard to communication between various entities and doctors. It's an enormous issue. This wasn't him but there are so many ways to save money, I don't know at all why we didn't do things all along that seem so simple and obvious. For example, in the CBO hearing where Elemendorf said the House plan as is wouldnt cut costs it would raise them, Mark Warner was talking with him about one of his pet projects that they are both going to work on. In short, it was simply to have as many people as possible write living wills. If people just took the time to have a plan for the end of life (even if they are 40 or 50 or 60), it could cut costs by I think he said 70 billion a year. That's an easy change. I don't think you have to force people to all get living wills but just making that little thing a priority could save so much because so many people get into these life threatening situations, the family make the choices instead of the patient, and it's always to do all kinds of outrageously expensive stuff that the patient doesn't really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Public support is waning, the time is now for him, every day that passes, it makes it that much more difficult to follow through with the administration's agenda, specially considering the economy. Of course, if the economy appears to be improving, I imagine his popularity ratings will rise, and the green chutes and pink farts that he is promising will be believed and passage of the Health Care Reform would become that much easier. Public support is waning BECAUSE the health care option plan is crap. People are slowly beginning to realize that it's an albatross and not the cure-all BO is claiming it will be. And without the ability to get it passed on a moment's notice, details of it will be made known, and especially to those who will have to vote on it. And even many members of his own party don't agree with it. I have no doubt he thought he could get this passed quickly, giving lip service to the "bipartisan" angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The war is lost. We're BillsFanOne. Senate Won't Vote on Health Care Overhaul Before Recess. The earth will cease to be worth living in. It'll be, "The end of August at the Hotel Ozone" all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Some were, some weren't. He certainly wasn't an Obama mouthpiece, and was a little miffed that he wasn't being listened to more by the politicians. Obviously as head of the Mayo clinic he knows a ton about the industry, and he's a very polished and good spokesman for his views. His main point, to me, was two fold: 1] It's stupid to say we have to "fix the system" because there isn't and never has been a system. It's all a clusterfukk and has been all along. But he seemed to say the whole thing can be rethought of without just throwing everything out and starting over. 2] The overhaul will take a generation although he didn't use that word. It's very long term. He said we need to make changes in steps, and that we were "basically" going about it the right way. What we should do immediately is get everyone insured, and (IIRC) fix the way payments are made. Get that done right now. He seemed to like a lot of the things that are in the plans that no one is talking about. He was big on IT, too, especially with regard to communication between various entities and doctors. It's an enormous issue. This wasn't him but there are so many ways to save money, I don't know at all why we didn't do things all along that seem so simple and obvious. For example, in the CBO hearing where Elemendorf said the House plan as is wouldnt cut costs it would raise them, Mark Warner was talking with him about one of his pet projects that they are both going to work on. In short, it was simply to have as many people as possible write living wills. If people just took the time to have a plan for the end of life (even if they are 40 or 50 or 60), it could cut costs by I think he said 70 billion a year. That's an easy change. I don't think you have to force people to all get living wills but just making that little thing a priority could save so much because so many people get into these life threatening situations, the family make the choices instead of the patient, and it's always to do all kinds of outrageously expensive stuff that the patient doesn't really want. Doesn't sound like the House plan to me. I wonder if anyone pointed out that a big part of the $800bn stimulus plan includes over $30 bn in funding for healthcare initiatives including IT spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Doesn't sound like the House plan to me. I wonder if anyone pointed out that a big part of the $800bn stimulus plan includes over $30 bn in funding for healthcare initiatives including IT spending? That'll be so cool when everyone's health records will be together in one big database in Washington - or a suburb thereof or perhaps in an undisclosed location where anybody who leaked any of it would be put on double-secret probation after a stern warning and a paid timeout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 That'll be so cool when everyone's health records will be together in one big database in Washington - or a suburb thereof or perhaps in an undisclosed location where anybody who leaked any of it would be put on double-secret probation after a stern warning and a paid timeout. Screw that! If I'm paying for someone's health care, I want to see their records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Doesn't sound like the House plan to me. I wonder if anyone pointed out that a big part of the $800bn stimulus plan includes over $30 bn in funding for healthcare initiatives including IT spending? Standardizing medical records is just about the only thing in the plan likely to reduce costs, and the only thing I agree with, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Standardizing medical records is just about the only thing in the plan likely to reduce costs, and the only thing I agree with, actually. That's because making all medical records uniform is not a form of socialism, it's a form of practicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 That's because making all medical records uniform is not a form of socialism, it's a form of practicality.I It's also not as cheap and easy as it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 It's also not as cheap and easy as it sounds. Maybe not as cheap, but I'm sure if the government had its way, and we really did have centralized healthcare, forcing doctors to transfer over to a new medical record system wouldn't be incredibly tough (who knows it could create a few jobs, or a temporary market?) Regardless, It's obviously not even on the list of reasons they want this thing to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Standardizing medical records is just about the only thing in the plan likely to reduce costs, and the only thing I agree with, actually. Changing the way doctors get paid could have an enormous savings. I think there are huge areas for all kinds of savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Changing the way doctors get paid could have an enormous savings. I think there are huge areas for all kinds of savings. Outside of continuing to pay them less, and seeing less of them accept new Medicare and Medicaid patients, what would you propose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Outside of continuing to pay them less, and seeing less of them accept new Medicare and Medicaid patients, what would you propose? Not paying them for the quantity of services they order, but the quality of their care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Not paying them for the quantity of services they order, but the quality of their care. Great! We can do the same for teachers....oh, sorry, NEA wouldn't appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Standardizing medical records is just about the only thing in the plan likely to reduce costs, and the only thing I agree with, actually. Which is already sort of handled in the ARRA stimulus bill. Yet we need a new bill to make sure that the old bill's message is heard. Yup, that's how you drive greater efficiency through the system and how it won't bust the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 One thing I just read in the Wall Street Journal about the "public plan". Most Americans won't qualify for it. Not everybody can get it. Only low wage earners and rather small businesses can opt for it. So the idea that it will drive out private insurance companies and the entire thing will be a government plan is nonsense. One point that gets overlooked in the debate is that most people probably wouldn't even be eligible for the public plan. Only individuals without affordable employer-provided insurance and businesses that aren't big enough to buy reasonably priced plans on their own would qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Not paying them for the quantity of services they order, but the quality of their care. where have I heard this before? Sounds like something B.O said on his extended campaign trail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 One thing I just read in the Wall Street Journal about the "public plan". Most Americans won't qualify for it. Not everybody can get it. Only low wage earners and rather small businesses can opt for it. So the idea that it will drive out private insurance companies and the entire thing will be a government plan is nonsense. I think that we may have heard of cases where a government agency that competes in the private sector really has no impact on the private sector.... Once you throw the plan out there, you will introduce a strong incentive for people to qualify for the government plan. You will also give private insurers a huge incentive to deny coverage to many more people, because once they reach a certain poverty level, they'd be covered by the government. This isn't a slippery slope - this is Mt Everest on ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think that we may have heard of cases where a government agency that competes in the private sector really has no impact on the private sector.... Once you throw the plan out there, you will introduce a strong incentive for people to qualify for the government plan. You will also give private insurers a huge incentive to deny coverage to many more people, because once they reach a certain poverty level, they'd be covered by the government. This isn't a slippery slope - this is Mt Everest on ice. The CBO estimates 10-15% of the public will qualify and opt for the public plan. If you make too much money you don't qualify. If your company is relatively big they can't put you in the plan and they would pay fines for not providing coverage. It seems to me that it has a cap on how many people could possibly get it. Not counting the fact that if it's SO terrible, like opponents say it's going to be, why would many people who could afford another plan pay $3000 for the worst plan in the world that has government Nazis standing outside your hospital room denying you blood and everything else you need, when they could pay $4000 for the excellent private plan where the private insurance companies give you sensual massages from Thai triplets and feed you grapes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 The CBO estimates 10-15% of the public will qualify and opt for the public plan. If you make too much money you don't qualify. If your company is relatively big they can't put you in the plan and they would pay fines for not providing coverage. It seems to me that it has a cap on how many people could possibly get it. Not counting the fact that if it's SO terrible, like opponents say it's going to be, why would many people who could afford another plan pay $3000 for the worst plan in the world that has government Nazis standing outside your hospital room denying you blood and everything else you need, when they could pay $4000 for the excellent private plan where the private insurance companies give you sensual massages from Thai triplets and feed you grapes? Okay. So let me get this straight. The new plan will only cover 10-15% of the public. The other 90% will stay on their current plan and, for all intents and purposes, that 90% WON'T qualify for the government plan. So approximately 30 million will be on the government plan and the other 270,000,000 of us will keep what we've got. And this is going to drop costs, pay for itself and lead to reform...how exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts