Do you think health care reform will pass?

[Baculus]

I believe we DO need to gut everything. That's the only way this can be fixed. We're not necessarily screwed. We might have a small window of opportunity to really turn this around, and spending trillions on a healthcare plan that won't change anything and raising taxes for it won't get us there. The only problem is I think we need to keep a lot of our military and defense spending intact. I don't think we could be safe in this day and age without it. There is so much unnecessary money the government shells out to domestic programs that, frankly, are not important in the least. I was one of the few who didn't support the bailout. Why? Capitalism always sorts itself out. As much as those big companies were imbedded into our economy, if a company becomes weak, you let it die. In its place, something better will step up that can survive. There would have been big repercussions, but that's what you get when you overextend. Capitalism is weakened when you begin to rely on the government. It is not the government's role to support dying companies who brought on the problem themselves.

I also didn't support the bailouts, so we have so commonality in that department.

As far as the DOD is concerned, there are many programs which are purely fluff, pork programs that did little to safeguard this country or to provide our fighting men and women with what they need in the field to perform their duties. As I mentioned before, we spend over five hundred trillion a year on the military. That is more than the entire economy of many countries.

There is a reason why Ike suggested for us, the public, to distrust the military-industrial-(Congressional) complex. Like any industry, they will such whatever money they can from us, including sucking away the ability to provide for needed domestic programs.

I don't think we can be hands off we should be hands off with the DOD budget. More so, it needs to be made more efficient while ensuring our fighting forces get what they need. (And, to be frank, there were definitely procurement issues, when it came to fighting war. My nephew has been to Iraq twice and he can definitely certify to that.)

Basically, we've tied up so much money in so many unimportant ventures that it's obvious why we're in a hole. Our government departments are too big and overstep their boundaries too much. We need to leave more up to the states and encourage privatization. This problem won't be fixed by overtaxing. The people need money to invest in the economy and strengthen it. Instead, the government takes the money, holes it away and either 1) Doesn't even spend it (Stimulus bill) 2) Waste it 3) Occasionally gets it right (military spending)

I don't think privatization is going to be the magic cure. You have to remember that our state and federal departments rely heavily on private companies for various projects, and they have not always proved to be more efficient.

Take the city of Chicago. They privatized much of the public housing, but the companies hired to manage these properties weren't actually holding up their end of the bargain -- they weren't maintaining the properties -- while accepting millions in public funds.

Of course, some may argue that the intersecting of public and private interests is where we run into trouble.

I definitely understand the concern over federal government spending. My problem is that, in this day and age, I don't have any more trust for the private world, either. Much of our woes in health care are due to the private sector, whose main purpose isn't to serve their clients, but to provide for a profitable bottom line.

A few years ago when I was more of an anarcho-capitalist we would have been more in agreement, but I just don't have a lot of trust in the corporate world. Not anymore. Even less than the government . . .

[ABQCOWBOY]

I believe we DO need to gut everything. That's the only way this can be fixed. We're not necessarily screwed. We might have a small window of opportunity to really turn this around, and spending trillions on a healthcare plan that won't change anything and raising taxes for it won't get us there. The only problem is I think we need to keep a lot of our military and defense spending intact. I don't think we could be safe in this day and age without it. There is so much unnecessary money the government shells out to domestic programs that, frankly, are not important in the least. I was one of the few who didn't support the bailout. Why? Capitalism always sorts itself out. As much as those big companies were imbedded into our economy, if a company becomes weak, you let it die. In its place, something better will step up that can survive. There would have been big repercussions, but that's what you get when you overextend. Capitalism is weakened when you begin to rely on the government. It is not the government's role to support dying companies who brought on the problem themselves.

Basically, we've tied up so much money in so many unimportant ventures that it's obvious why we're in a hole. Our government departments are too big and overstep their boundaries too much. We need to leave more up to the states and encourage privatization. This problem won't be fixed by overtaxing. The people need money to invest in the economy and strengthen it. Instead, the government takes the money, holes it away and either 1) Doesn't even spend it (Stimulus bill) 2) Waste it 3) Occasionally gets it right (military spending)

I believe that this post probably speaks best to the basic fears that most Conservatives have with the current Health Care Bill. Regardless of the degree to which those fears are valid, this is what most fear IMO. The one thing that you could probably add is the fear of Government take over of the current system. I know that many think this is crazy but history has shown that Governments have been taken over by less.

If our Government actually sat down and decided to craft a piece of Legislature that would actually correct some of the problems and address some of the fears, what a great piece of law that might be.

I have heard many Conservatives on this board bring up TORT reform, only to have the party line thrown out as quickly as the orignianl text appeared on the screen. "TORT only accounts for 2% of the overall." Is that an accurate retort? Let's look at this for a second. According to what has been reported, Health Care makes up about 16% of our GNP. If that's the case, I think our GNP is about 14 Trillion? OK, so that number is 2,240,000,000,000.00. OK, Tort is 2% of that so that number is $44,800.000,000.00 roughly. That's what 2% reflects but wait. That's not the entire story here. 2% is what actually changes hands. That actual hard number associated with TORT but it's not the real number. The real number is that listed above plus what TORT actually causes. Wrongful suit actually has a layered effect on Health Care. Because the regulation on the Medical Industry is so screwed up, it forces higher costs for Malpractice Insurance for Doctors everywhere, which in turn, causes higher Bills from the Doctors, higher bills from the providers, higher insurance premiums to you from the insurance companies. The number is really much larger but even if the number were only what is reflected above, why wouldn't you consider TORT Reform? If you could cut that number in half, why wouldn't you consider that? To me, it's crazy not to but no measures have been taken, as yet, to correct this problem. These are the kinds of things that I, as a Conservative, just do not understand.

[Baculus]

BTW, for those who are interested, the new CBO numbers on the Democrat's bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/cbo-score-on-health-care_n_502543.html

[fansince62]

There is a potentiality that everything you just described is going to happen anyway, in a worst case scenario, but without addressing the need for health care reform I don't think dire financial straits can be avoided for both the federal government and for the public.

But I suspect you know this, from reading your paragraph. I think contention is to "how do we go from here to there: financial stability?"

The Ron Paul in me would say, "Cut everything until we have reached point zero. Then re-align and go from there." But that is probably nearly impossible to do at this point.

At this rate, businesses will have difficult in providing insurance for their employees. What happens then? The housing market provided to be a tipping point for economy -- can a "health care crises" provide the same sort of effect? (Those for and against reform will probably make an argument that it will.)

Just think about this though, when it comes to public spending: The DOD has a budget of around $540 billion at this point (give or take a few billion). The health care bill is slated to cost over a trillion in ten years. During that same period of time, if the DOD budget stays the same (and it has been increasing every year during this decade), we will have spent five trillion on military spending.

If we are going to make cuts, we have to look at EVERY department for budgetary cuts. We can't become a Sparta -- a gutted, militarized state, because that is what we are facing, with cuts to domestic programs, where the public health is declining as well as the public's education and well being.

Sorry -- this responses ended up being much longer than I anticipated. That is the problem with my writing! I like to append, append, append.

I agree with this paragraph, so at least we do have some commonalities between us.

agreeing that there is a lot of waste in DoD....where do you think the largest % of DoD expenditures goes? and can you explain why there is so much waste and why it has proven so difficult to restrain?

and as long as we're going down this road: eliminate the dept of education and severely reduce most of the other departments that do more damage than good and basically serve as an alternative for unemployment compensation.

[Wrong Direction]

It may not matter. Word I'm hearing from a pseudo-insider is that they think the Dem dominoes are starting to fall in line with Obama and Pelosi. It looks like they have the votes.

Nothing is for certain (he's not THAT much of an insider), but he thinks it's quite likely now.

[Baculus]

If our Government actually sat down and decided to craft a piece of Legislature that would actually correct some of the problems and address some of the fears, what a great piece of law that might be.

The Democrats are "the government," and this is what they have tried to do. They even include dozens of Republican amendments.

I have heard many Conservatives on this board bring up TORT reform, only to have the party line thrown out as quickly as the orignianl text appeared on the screen. "TORT only accounts for 2% of the overall." Is that an accurate retort? Let's look at this for a second. According to what has been reported, Health Care makes up about 16% of our GNP. If that's the case, I think our GNP is about 14 Trillion? OK, so that number is 2,240,000,000,000.00. OK, Tort is 2% of that so that number is $44,800.000,000.00 roughly. That's what 2% reflects but wait. That's not the entire story here. 2% is what actually changes hands. That actual hard number associated with TORT but it's not the real number. The real number is that listed above plus what TORT actually causes. Wrongful suit actually has a layered effect on Health Care. Because the regulation on the Medical Industry is so screwed up, it forces higher costs for Malpractice Insurance for Doctors everywhere, which in turn, causes higher Bills from the Doctors, higher bills from the providers, higher insurance premiums to you from the insurance companies. The number is really much larger but even if the number were only what is reflected above, why wouldn't you consider TORT Reform? If you could cut that number in half, why wouldn't you consider that? To me, it's crazy not to but no measures have been taken, as yet, to correct this problem. These are the kinds of things that I, as a Conservative, just do not understand.

The issue isn't that tort reform affects only 2% of health care spending, but it's that tort reform is the first issue mentioned by the GOP, as if that is THE most important issue in this debate.

It isn't.

Also, there is a difference between the Democratic and GOP tort reform views. The Democrats would like to have a neutral board that would decide the merit and values of a lawsuit, while the GOP would like to cap the damage penalty in such lawsuits, a sort of one-size, fits all approach that doesn't seem fair to anyone affected by malpractice.

[Baculus]

agreeing that there is a lot of waste in DoD....where do you think the largest % of DoD expenditures goes?

Hmmm, I cannot recall any figures, off hand. I would probably want to look at some pie charts and graphs before I venture a guess.

[fansince62]

BTW, for those who are interested, the new CBO numbers on the Democrat's bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/cbo-score-on-health-care_n_502543.html

bahahaha! do you believe the numbers? does any one in their right mind believe that expanding healthcare to 30-40 million people with no real cost containment provisions and revenue generation limited to raising taxes in the middle of a severe recession is going to work?

man o man. it will take a decade or more to undo the damage this is going to cause.

[Baculus]

Holy smokes -- I just learned something new.

If Wikipedia is correct, the estimated DOD spending for 2011 is one trillion dollars. As much as 20% of this is interest from past wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

[Baculus]

bahahaha! do you believe the numbers? does any one in their right mind believe that expanding healthcare to 30-40 million people with no real cost containment provisions and revenue generation limited to raising taxes in the middle of a severe recession is going to work?

man o man. it will take a decade or more to undo the damage this is going to cause.

Why is the CBO suddenly unbelievable when it comes to this bill?

Also, be more specific when you say there are no real "cost containment provisions." And the revenue generating isn't entirely centered around raising taxes, either.

[Wrong Direction]

I think the rapid exchange of information between medical practitioners is one of the key advantages of such an exchange.

This is something, early in this debate (as in early last year) I proposed as being an effective attribute to reform -- the value of information technology in reform. I work in IT, and I have worked in the medical field helping to install new equipment, i.e., servers for virtualization software and the workstation endpoints. Now, this isn't the same as an organizational level Health Information Exchange, but I have seen first hand the usefulness of fast provisioning of health care data via a centralized data depository.

The below article, though, discusses the challenges that organizations face with such information exchanges:

http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2010/02/11/Health-Information-Exchange-vendors-Klas-report.aspx

That sounds like an interesting point -- if you could expound upon it when you return, I'd like to hear your ideas.

As a point of debate, I am not married to the Congressional Democratic bills nor the ideas contained within. I sometimes take a devil's advocate or contrarian position on some issues because -- well, it's what I do.

You're actually confusing the HIE with EHRs. Just about everyone in Washington is in favor of further development of EHRs that can talk to each other. That was part of the stimulus bill, actually. This is not an issue being debated.

In fact, the administration just recently released their definitions of "meaningful use" of EHRs. This is already well underway, and this administration's efforts are a continuation of efforts started under the Bush administration.

[Ax]

Government run...

Social Security

Medicare

Medicaid

Fannie & Freddie

The Postal Service

Amtrak

and now...

Healthcare.

Inspiring, huh?

So inspiring that the ruling party has had to buy numerous votes from their own party members.

The accounting tricks being used in the CBO numbers are pure, 100%, USDA Bull****.

My favorite part of the new plan? 10 years of payments, for 6 years of incrementally increased "reform."

[Baculus]

Here is the newest, reconciled bill, titled under the Reconciliation Act of 2010:

http://rules.house.gov/ and http://rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4606

The CBO document:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/18/Document-CBO-Preliminary-Analysis-of-Reconciliation-Act-of-2010.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+khn%2Ffulltext+%28All+Kaiser+Health+News+%28Full+Text%29%29

[Baculus]

Government run...

Social Security

Medicare

Medicaid

Fannie & Freddie

The Postal Service

Amtrak

and now...

Healthcare.

Inspiring, huh?

So inspiring that the ruling party has had to buy numerous votes from their own party members.

They wouldn't be any more inspiring if they were privately owned.

ENRON, anyone?

The accounting tricks being used in the CBO numbers are pure, 100%, USDA Bull****.

My favorite part of the new plan? 10 years of payments, for 6 years of incrementally increased "reform."

Have you even bothered to check on this before you made this statement? Looking at the CBO document, I see no evidence of these accounting "tricks." The tabled spending is from 2010 to 2019.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/18/Document-CBO-Preliminary-Analysis-of-Reconciliation-Act-of-2010.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+khn%2Ffulltext+%28All+Kaiser+Health+News+%28Full+Text%29%29

So, what happened to all those other "power grabbing" "Slaughter rule." "deem and pass" stuff that was supposed to happened? Oh, you mean it never did?

[Baculus]

You're actually confusing the HIE with EHRs. Just about everyone in Washington is in favor of further development of EHRs that can talk to each other. That was part of the stimulus bill, actually. This is not an issue being debated.

In fact, the administration just recently released their definitions of "meaningful use" of EHRs. This is already well underway, and this administration's efforts are a continuation of efforts started under the Bush administration.

One leads to another: HIEs use data from EHRs for the data exchange. They go hand in hand -- it is really a matter of usability once you have a EHR, right?

I am glad the Bush administration demonstrated foresight on this issue. Hopefully it will continue, and increase, under the reform efforts.

[Ax]

They wouldn't be any more inspiring if they were privately owned.

ENRON, anyone?

Yeah, Enron ****ed up for sure. And they paid a price.

The government ****s up time after time, and there only cure for a bleeding gash, is to wrap more of our money around it. And it never helps.

Have you even bothered to check on this before you made this statement? Looking at the CBO document, I see no evidence of these accounting "tricks." The tabled spending is from 2010 to 2019.

Hey, my friend, if you can show where we don't have to pay into this, thing, for years, before, we ever get to use the whole, thing, I'm listening. I know every administration uses these CBO "tricks", but that don't make it right.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/18/Document-CBO-Preliminary-Analysis-of-Reconciliation-Act-of-2010.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+khn%2Ffulltext+%28All+Kaiser+Health+News+%28Full+Text%29%29

Quite honestly, after reading the first couple paragraphs, no further reading is required, at this time. It is preliminary, and not verified. So, kind of a, premature evaluation. But quick, let's pass it before we actually know!

So, what happened to all those other "power grabbing" "Slaughter rule." "deem and pass" stuff that was supposed to happened? Oh, you mean it never did?

Personally, I never said they would, or wouldn't. But from watching all the "buying" of votes, I don't doubt that they'll stomp kittens to death on the House floor if that's what it takes.

[Chicken Fried]

I also didn't support the bailouts, so we have so commonality in that department.

As far as the DOD is concerned, there are many programs which are purely fluff, pork programs that did little to safeguard this country or to provide our fighting men and women with what they need in the field to perform their duties. As I mentioned before, we spend over five hundred trillion a year on the military. That is more than the entire economy of many countries.

There is a reason why Ike suggested for us, the public, to distrust the military-industrial-(Congressional) complex. Like any industry, they will such whatever money they can from us, including sucking away the ability to provide for needed domestic programs.

I don't think we can be hands off we should be hands off with the DOD budget. More so, it needs to be made more efficient while ensuring our fighting forces get what they need. (And, to be frank, there were definitely procurement issues, when it came to fighting war. My nephew has been to Iraq twice and he can definitely certify to that.)

I have little doubt that we have wasted money in the DOD. I think most of it is pretty necessary to our security, but yes, a great deal of it serves no purpose. I know down at the beach the Marine Patrol got a crapload of money from the government to buy new SUVs, patrol boats, the whole kit and kaboodle. Is that nice to have? Yes. Is it necessary? No. I respect what they do for sure, but the Coast Guard already handles most of the shore patrol. The Marine Police don't need all of that money. I think the DOD is the one department that really needs its money, although like I said, a lot has probably gone to waste. I shouldn't criticize the DOD too much because I might just be looking for employment with them after graduation.

You are right that privatization is not always the answer. It has its place just like the government has its own role. I lean toward the opinion that if the job can be done just as well by a lower level of government or, even better, not by the government at all (except in some circumstances like war where the federal government needs to coordinate), you go with the latter.

[Baculus]

Yeah, Enron ****ed up for sure. And they paid a price.

Actually the California taxpayers paid the price, at over $70 billion dollars.

What was partially responsible for Enron? Deregulation, which is what some on the GOP want to do with health care.

The government ****s up time after time, and there only cure for a bleeding gash, is to wrap more of our money around it. And it never helps.

That may be true, but private interests are also involved with screw ups. After all, who is responsible for billions in Medicare fraud? Private interests. Now, one may argue that the government enables such fraud and screw-ups, and they would also be correct.

Hey, my friend, if you can show where we don't have to pay into this, thing, for years, before, we ever get to use the whole, thing, I'm listening. I know every administration uses these CBO "tricks", but that don't make it right.

Quite honestly, after reading the first couple paragraphs, no further reading is required, at this time. It is preliminary, and not verified. So, kind of a, premature evaluation. But quick, let's pass it before we actually know!

You should read beyond a couple of paragraphs, because it has more relevant spending data. And, as I said earlier, it accounts for ten years of spending.

Personally, I never said they would, or wouldn't. But from watching all the "buying" of votes, I don't doubt that they'll stomp kittens to death on the House floor if that's what it takes.

So far, only the anti-reform side of the debate has threatened violence over this issue. And judging by the mean streak some of these folks exhibit, I am starting to think they will do anything to oppose the Democrats.

Remember the IRS plane attack? Are we going to see something like this against health care reform?

[Baculus]

I have little doubt that we have wasted money in the DOD. I think most of it is pretty necessary to our security, but yes, a great deal of it serves no purpose. I know down at the beach the Marine Patrol got a crapload of money from the government to buy new SUVs, patrol boats, the whole kit and kaboodle. Is that nice to have? Yes. Is it necessary? No. I respect what they do for sure, but the Coast Guard already handles most of the shore patrol. The Marine Police don't need all of that money. I think the DOD is the one department that really needs its money, although like I said, a lot has probably gone to waste. I shouldn't criticize the DOD too much because I might just be looking for employment with them after graduation.

The DOD are pretty thorough in their background checks. Better watch yourself!

You are right that privatization is not always the answer. It has its place just like the government has its own role. I lean toward the opinion that if the job can be done just as well by a lower level of government or, even better, not by the government at all (except in some circumstances like war where the federal government needs to coordinate), you go with the latter.

A fair response, and though I have been in support of the Democratic reform efforts, it would be ideal if we could achieve all of the set objectives with as lean of a bill as possible, cost wise. I have long criticized the Bush administration for their spending, so I know it may not seem fiscally consistent to support this bill.

I am just on the side of hope that it will, in fact, reduce the federal budget.

[Wrong Direction]

One leads to another: HIEs use data from EHRs for the data exchange. They go hand in hand -- it is really a matter of usability once you have a EHR, right?

I am glad the Bush administration demonstrated foresight on this issue. Hopefully it will continue, and increase, under the reform efforts.

No. A health information exchange can exist without EHRs and EHRs do exist without a health information exchange.

Obama's basically proposing Massachucettes healthcare for all. The state sets the mandates (I think that's how this will be run, but that could still be at the fed level). Then, all insurance plans apply to the state/fed for the right to compete in that state. They submit coverage plans for approval. This is why it's "one size fits all." All insurance plans in that state have to meet the same standards.

This has nothing to do with EHRs.

[luckydevil]

Yeah, Enron ****ed up for sure. And they paid a price.

The government ****s up time after time, and there only cure for a bleeding gash, is to wrap more of our money around it. And it never helps.

That's the thing. Enron went out of business, government failure is often met with more funding.

[Chicken Fried]

The DOD are pretty thorough in their background checks. Better watch yourself!

A fair response, and though I have been in support of the Democratic reform efforts, it would be ideal if we could achieve all of the set objectives with as lean of a bill as possible, cost wise. I have long criticized the Bush administration for their spending, so I know it may not seem fiscally consistent to support this bill.

I am just on the side of hope that it will, in fact, reduce the federal budget.

This is off topic, but I've always wondered. Can the government track us on ES and find out who we are and stuff like that? Not that I've said anything bad on here, just wondering.

[alexey]

Government run...

Social Security

Medicare

Medicaid

Fannie & Freddie

The Postal Service

Amtrak

and now...

Healthcare.

Inspiring, huh?

Military is run by the government, so sit down and shut up.

[TheGoodBits]

This is off topic, but I've always wondered. Can the government track us on ES and find out who we are and stuff like that? Not that I've said anything bad on here, just wondering.

If they've got a reason to be monitoring you, then damn right they can track you on here. lol

BTW I'm reporting you to the FBI so they can check in on you and make sure you aren't some crazy extremist that could end up shooting up Capitol Hill. Your question just raised my eyebrows. If you've got nothing to hide, don't worry.

[Baculus]

This is off topic, but I've always wondered. Can the government track us on ES and find out who we are and stuff like that? Not that I've said anything bad on here, just wondering.

If they wanted to do so, yeah, they could. They do that with jihadists websites all the time, tracking the comings and goings of posters.

This is Extremeskins, so maybe it sounds a bit radical. ;-)