Republicans' Plan to Repeal Healthcare?

[Nebula815]

And WHY did they choose to oppose it so militantly if they actually agreed with most of its tenets? Why didn't they negotiate and compromise like grown-ups do, particularly grown-ups who are in the minority party? They could have steered the bill to align it even more closely with their interests, and then they could declare a victory not only for their conservative principles but also their bipartisan ethos.

Instead they held their breath until they turned blue like big ol' babies. No wonder so many people consider our political system to be completely broken.

Because like I said before, that would be like asking Democrats to compromise on having abortion banned. Some things you cannot compromise on. Conservatives could not compromise on having the government take control over the health insurance industry.

The aspects they wanted the Democrats would never do. The Republicans wanted tort reform. No way. They wanted to remove the ban on purchasing health insurance across state lines. Again, no dice (and no debating it either!). And so forth.

 

[Char. Limit]

Because like I said before, that would be like asking Democrats to compromise on having abortion banned. Some things you cannot compromise on. Conservatives could not compromise on having the government take control over the health insurance industry.

The aspects they wanted the Democrats would never do. The Republicans wanted tort reform. No way. They wanted to remove the ban on purchasing health insurance across state lines. Again, no dice (and no debating it either!). And so forth.

You can't compromise on banning abortion... a ban is absolute, or it's no ban. So, indeed, it would be very hard to ask Democrats to compromise on something that if compromised on, no longer exists.

I do believe that tort reform and the public option should have been in, along with purchasing health insurance across state lines. I'm pro-responsibility, so I would not have favored my tax dollars (and I do pay tax dollars; just because I'm 17 doesn't mean I don't have a job) heading to abortion, no matter my views on abortion itself. Whether abortion is right or wrong, it shouldn't be tax-supported. After all, as I said earlier in this paragraph, I'm pro-responsibility. If you don't want the baby, don't have sex. I give exceptions in the case of rape or to save the life of the mother. Of course, the problem with this is that the already-high false rape accusation rate would skyrocket as women would find out that they were pregnant and then claim rape so they could get rid of the pregnancy. To sum up this overly blathering paragraph, tort reform, cross-state health insurance, and the public option should have been in, and tax-supported abortions should have been out.

 

[mheslep]

probably because i have had less problems with medicare than most , but not all, private insurances.
...

It is all the above that a majority of us favor single payer.

As we https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2316756&postcount=507", I doubt that a majority of US physicians favor single payer. As far as I can tell, universal single payer is fairly rare approach to universal health care throughout the world. There's Canada, who else?

 

[mheslep]

Like I said, the CBO is wrong; there is just no way they can accurately calculate something like this.

If the latter is true, then it would be more correct to say the CBO estimates are not credible in this case, not that they are wrong.

 

[adrenaline]

As we https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2316756&postcount=507", I doubt that a majority of US physicians favor single payer. As far as I can tell, universal single payer is fairly rare approach to universal health care throughout the world. There's Canada, who else?

Taiwan, where i came from it works fabulously, they were just like us until enacting national health insurance. My relatives in high paying professions like derm, urology there are doing just as well, they had to go electronic medical records, but are finding themselves hiring less staff,dealing with less beurocracy, etc.

 

[adrenaline]

as I am in academia and have to deal with real life free market overhead costs

Majority (57%) of Academic Medicine Physicians Favor Single-Payer
PRINT PAGE
EN ESPAÑOL

March, 1999

Study in New England Journal of Medicine Finds Medical School Deans, Faculty, Residents and Students Favor Single-Payer 3 to 1 Over Managed Care

Managed care is bad for your health, according to the first comprehensive survey of physicians involved in research and teaching published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine. But the nation's best and brightest physicians don't want to return to the old fee-for-service system, either.

So what does this prestigious group think would make a good health system? According to the study, "all groups [Deans, department chairs, residency training directors, physician faculty at medical schools, resident physicians, and medical students] expressed a preference for a single-payer health care system over both managed-care and fee-for-service systems. Overall, 57.1 percent thought that a single-payer system with universal coverage was the best health care system... A total of 21.7 percent favored managed care, and 18.7 percent preferred a fee-for-service system."

"I'm not surprised at all by these findings," said Dr. Douglas Robins, Chair of the D.C. chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program. "A survey of all physicians members of the D.C. medical society found that 69 percent support single payer. The academic medicine physicians are just the tip of the iceberg."

In an accompanying editorial in the Journal, Dr. Robert Michels strongly disagreed with the view that the purpose of medical education should be to "prepare students to fit into the new world of health care, to work in it effectively and presumably happily." Dr. Michels noted that "the unhappiness of academic physicians...reflects the recognition that managed care threatens medicine's core values," and that "medical education is working well...by underlining the urgent need to change managed care [emphasis added]." He also noted that physicians support single payer national health insurance even though physicians know that "a single-payer system would be unlikely to increase the financial rewards of medical practice."

"We know physicians support single-payer national health insurance because of the increasing numbers of medical associations and prominent physicians that are endorsing it," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard.

They include: The D.C. branch of the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Medical Women's Association (AMWA), the National Medical Association (NMA), the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), the Islamic Medical Association (IMA), the American Association of Community Psychiatrists (AACP), the American Family Therapy Association, and others. The Maryland and Massachusetts branches of the AMA are studying single payer, and the American College of Surgeons' Dr. David Murray testified before Congress in 1994 that single payer would "probably provide the best assurance that patients would be able to seek care from any doctor of their choice."

Yes, overpaid specialists like interventional radiology, dermatology, nurse anesthestists that make more than me and don't have to continue stabilizing patients in the ICU when they crash, favor the status quo.

 

[adrenaline]

another poll showing a majority of us favor single payer

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN31432035


and another
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?article_1_115

and another( many studies in one chart)

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

and another

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/02.12/09-singlepayer.html


it goes on and on

 

[turbo]

I haven't polled the ophthalmologists that I worked for as their IT manager, but I am dead-certain that they would prefer single-payer insurance, as well. The practice had over 30 docs spread over 3 large permanent, and 4 smaller part-time locations. We were constantly sending our coders for training to keep up with the vague and ever-changing demands of the insurance companies. Keeping qualified, experienced people in administrative positions was critical to keeping the practice solvent. The practice was growing, and associate doctors that were working out well were offered partnerships. As you might imagine, the fiscal health of the practice, including the aging of receivables, solidity of lines of credit, etc were high in the minds of doctors considering buying into partnerships, so the senior partners needed access to accurate timely information regarding those.

If you have every worked in ophthalmology, you'd know that a great many of the people referred to your practice have serious complications arising from diabetes, and other conditions that usually only crop up late in life. Because of that, we had a lot of poor people on Medicaid, and a lot of elderly people on Medicare. Payments from those programs were on-time and were rarely held back due to trivial details, unlike the private insurers. The practice would never consider refusing a new patient because they had government-managed insurance. Those docs are highly-paid specialists. Some did refractive surgeries, some did retinal surgeries and repairs, some did plastic surgery (reconstructive, following accidents usually) you get the drill. Still, they were very hands-on when we had meetings about the business side of the practice, and I never heard a single one of them suggest that there was a down-side to accepting and keeping patients who were on public plans. They understood the tremendous imbalance in overhead that resulted from dealing with public vs private plans. There were sometimes discussions about the possibility of dropping participation with some of the nastiest private plans, but never Medicare or Medicaid.

 

[mheslep]

as I am in academia and have to deal with real life free market overhead costs

I thought we all agreed there is very little 'free market' health care in the US.

...Yes, overpaid specialists like interventional radiology, dermatology, nurse anesthestists that make more than me and don't have to continue stabilizing patients in the ICU when they crash, favor the status quo.

I think discussion might go better if we look at the source and not summaries from the PNHP web site. http://www.pnhp.org/news/1999/march/majority_57_of_ac.php
That 1999 summary didn't post a NEJM title, I'm looking ...

 

[adrenaline]

I thought we all agreed there is very little 'free market' health care in the US.

i meant that my overhead goes up every year, my staff expects increases in salaries, and bonuses etc as if we can adjust our prices based on free market principles. Most employees just don't realize that I can't bill higher for a cold just because i need to find the 20 % in rent incurred this year etc.

 

[Char. Limit]

There's no free market, there's just a "free" market, when it comes to insurance...

After all, if insurance were a free market, companies would have incentive to stay competitive. But they don't compete...

 

[noblegas]

another poll showing a majority of us favor single payer

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN31432035


and another
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?article_1_115

and another( many studies in one chart)

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

and another

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/02.12/09-singlepayer.html


it goes on and on

Even if polls show that most americans want a healthcare system that resembles a single payer system , so what? That doesn't mean that the federal government should nationalize healthcare in order to grant the wishes of the majority of americans nor does it mean that americans are automatically entitled to healthcare because most want universal healthcare. Universal healtcare is immoral because you will be stealing the earnings of every US citizen without their consent to pay for a service that some don't want to use. 50 years ago ,Most americans did not support racial integration, does that mean since most americans did not support racial segregation that blacks should be stripped away of all of their rights that whites were fully allow to legally carry out? Polls use to show that most americans did not want to legalize gay marriage, but because most americans are uncomfortable seeing to gays in Holy Matrimony ,does that mean gays should not be allowed to get married? It is wrong to force americans to pay for a service that they are not naturally entitled to just like we are not automatically entitled to cars and free food, we should not be entitled to a "free" healthcare services.

 

[mheslep]

another poll showing a majority of us favor single payer

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN31432035

The authors are the same Carrol and Ackerman as in the 2004 study which https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2316756&postcount=507" , again Carrol is the PNHP leader/advocate.

and another
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?article_1_115

I see the author Dr Hart is a leader of the http://www.pnhp.org/states/minnesota" . Membership does not pertain, but I discount polls run by advocacy organization leaders.

and another( many studies in one chart)

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

Yes, cites the Hart and Carrol studies mentioned above, and public at large (not physicians) news organization polls along the lines of "Do you favor national health care or the existing system which sucks" strawmen. The links provided for further information are mainly back to PNHP website summaries. Sorry if I missed something more apropos but this is getting tiresome.

 

[mheslep]

i meant that my overhead goes up every year, my staff expects increases in salaries, and bonuses etc as if we can adjust our prices based on free market principles. Most employees just don't realize that I can't bill higher for a cold just because i need to find the 20 % in rent incurred this year etc.

Ah. Well all the best with your practice Dr A.

 

[adrenaline]

That 1999 summary didn't post a NEJM title, I'm looking ...

Volume 340:928-936, March 25th, 1999 #12
I have not renewed my subscription to nejm, so i could not get the full text sorry
but you may have access to it

And this was not in any way related to people in phnp

 

[adrenaline]

Membership does not pertain, but I discount polls run by advocacy organization leaders.

fair enough

Yes, cites the Hart and Carrol studies mentioned above, and public at large (not physicians) news organization polls along the lines of "Do you favor national health care or the existing system which sucks" strawmen. The links provided for further information are mainly back to PNHP website summaries. Sorry if I missed something more apropos but this is getting tiresome.

i'm sorry i meant to post that was a public opinion sorry, my lack of sleep is making me sloppy again

what about the study in the archives of internal medicine, granted it was limited to one state, but it seemed a reasonable poll of representative physicians?

 

[TMFKAN64]

Universal healthcare is immoral because you will be stealing the earnings of every US citizen without their consent to pay for a service that some don't want to use.

So you think that K-12 education, the interstate highway system, the space program and the U.S. military are similarly immoral?

 

[adrenaline]

So you think that K-12 education, the interstate highway system, the space program and the U.S. military are similarly immoral?

Yes let's not forget that most americans pay for the uninsured anyway with higher charges by the hospital ( ten dollar asprins to recover the costs of the uninsured on non payers) and that all health insurance premiums are higher just for the purpose of covering the uninsured. I believe I read some estimate an extra 1000 dollars for families and less than that for individuals. Can't remember the exact numbers.
Thus, American families are already picking up the tab for universal health coverage. Remember, providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients.

Consider it a hidden tax for taking care of the uninsured.

 

[BobG]

Universal healthcare is immoral because you will be stealing the earnings of every US citizen without their consent to pay for a service that some don't want to use.

So you think that K-12 education, the interstate highway system, the space program and the U.S. military are similarly immoral?

There's certainly some that would say using taxpayer dollars for K-12 education is immoral because they'd prefer a school voucher system.

 

[Nebula815]

Yes let's not forget that most americans pay for the uninsured anyway with higher charges by the hospital ( ten dollar asprins to recover the costs of the uninsured on non payers) and that all health insurance premiums are higher just for the purpose of covering the uninsured. I believe I read some estimate an extra 1000 dollars for families and less than that for individuals. Can't remember the exact numbers.
Thus, American families are already picking up the tab for universal health coverage. Remember, providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients.

Consider it a hidden tax for taking care of the uninsured.

One can make the above argument to argue that it would be better if everyone purchase health insurance, but that doesn't justify forcing people to buy health insurance IMO.

 

[adrenaline]

One can make the above argument to argue that it would be better if everyone purchase health insurance, but that doesn't justify forcing people to buy health insurance IMO.

I did not agree with the individual mandate, ( originally designed by Mitt Romney it looked like ) trust me, I opposed this health care reform bill but it is the only way to prevent the insurance industry who are now forced to cover preexisting from going bankrupt. human behavior is such they will wait till they are sick or diagnosed with a bad disease before purchasing health insurance on the exchange, kind of like allowing a person to obtain car insurance right after an accident. Thus, by forcing all comers healthy and sick to purchase the insurance you prevent this financial ruin for the health insurance companies. Don't you think the insurance lobby thought this through and helped pushed this through?

someone just sent this quote to me, I'm sure it is on another discussion panel.

"
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate,'' Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. ``But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.'' -Mitt Romney
"

 

[turbo]

One can make the above argument to argue that it would be better if everyone purchase health insurance, but that doesn't justify forcing people to buy health insurance IMO.

What? The Government is forcing me to buy education for children that I don't have. My wife and I have no kids, but over half of our property taxes go directly to paying for public education for children of others. If you want a system with no mandates, no social contracts between government and citizens, you'll be hard-pressed to find one.

 

[adrenaline]

Yeah, since I ride my mountain bike to work, ( heck I almost ride on the grass the whole time since rednecks run me off the road) I should not have to pay taxes for road construction when I buy gas to fill my lawnmower...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on a news report, I estimated one year that we paid almost exactly enough Federal tax to pay for the warhead, IIRC, on one cruise missile; this for a war that I didn't support and that was shown to be folly.

 

[Nebula815]

What? The Government is forcing me to buy education for children that I don't have. My wife and I have no kids, but over half of our property taxes go directly to paying for public education for children of others. If you want a system with no mandates, no social contracts between government and citizens, you'll be hard-pressed to find one.

Well for one, I do not really agree with taxing people to pay for other people children's education, nor do I agree with property taxes either. Government is not supposed to be able to tax property.

Just because the government has gotten away with infringing on our freedoms in a few ways doesn't justify further infringements.

And this isn't really a tax in the classic sense. It's a mandate that you have to purchase a product, or be fined.

 

[Nebula815]

I did not agree with the individual mandate, ( originally designed by Mitt Romney it looked like ) trust me, I opposed this health care reform bill but it is the only way to prevent the insurance industry who are now forced to cover preexisting from going bankrupt.

Yes, but they to prevent the health insurance industry from going bankrupt, they might have just put the country on a path towards bankruptcy. There were other alternatives we could have worked on for fixing healthcare, things to fix that drive up cost; Medicare and Medicaid themselves are partially responsible for driving up health insurance costs too.

 

[Astronuc]

Well for one, I do not really agree with taxing people to pay for other people children's education, . . .

I'm sure one's education was paid by taxpayers.

. . . nor do I agree with property taxes either. Government is not supposed to be able to tax property.

Governments have taxed property since there were governments.

Government can tax whatever the government decides to tax.

 

[noblegas]

So you think that K-12 education, the interstate highway system, the space program and the U.S. military are similarly immoral?

Most certainly. there lots of parents who homescooled their children, who send their kids to private schools, or don't have any kids at all but still they are forced to subsidize the costs of public education. It would be just as immoral to force a person to pay for someone else education as it would be to force a person to buy any product on the market that they did not want to spend money on.

 

[Nebula815]

I'm sure one's education was paid by taxpayers.

Yes, I'm saying I'm not sure I agree with having such a system. I mean the system is now established, no un-doing it, but if we were having a national debate over whether to institute a taxpayer-funded K-12 system, not sure I'd agree. Maybe with a proper voucher program to promote competition.

Governments have taxed property since there were governments.

Governments have also enslaved people since there were governments. That's why our Founding Fathers spent so much time thinking about how to design our government, because there never have really been any good ones.

Protection of private property rights is one of the most important aspects of a free society. When government can tax your property, this means technically you no longer own your property, because even if you pay it off, if you stop paying the taxes, you find out who really owns it.

Just because government can do something doesn't mean it should.

Government can tax whatever the government decides to tax.

Not our government. Our government can tax whatever the people allow it to tax since it is a representative government, but that requires a vigiliant citizenry.

 

[noblegas]

I'm sure one's education was paid by taxpayers.

I certainly received a better quality education outside my public school than I did while I was in public school. Most Kids I know forgot what they learn within a month, despite the thousands of dollars being invested in their education

 

[Astronuc]

Governments have also enslaved people since there were governments. That's why our Founding Fathers spent so much time thinking about how to design our government, because there never have really been any good ones.

Protection of private property rights is one of the most important aspects of a free society. When government can tax your property, this means technically you no longer own your property, because even if you pay it off, if you stop paying the taxes, you find out who really owns it.

Just because government can do something doesn't mean it should.

The US government owned all the land that was not owned by private citizens. Those citizens had purchased the land or had received grants from the King.

The government determines land rights - and always has.


The government (like Caesar) giveth and taketh away.

Public education was necessary to maximize literacy in the population. Left to private/personal means, we'd have ~90% illiteracy, as was the case in England and the US in colonial times. Women were essentially excluded from education.

For the most part, from my observations, governments are run like corporations. Corporations (governments) serve mainly the management (politicians) rather than the investors/employees (people).

 

[rewebster]

Ramming down the throats of the American people, jamming it through Congress, need to start over, have to hit the reset button, have to go step by step, government take over of the entire health insurance area, Ramming down the throats of the American people, have to hit the reset button, have to go step by step, Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problem, fresh start, run away spending, Ramming down the throats of the American people, have to hit the reset button, raises health care costs, jamming it through Congress, Ramming down the throats of the American people, start over, fresh start, have to hit the reset button

paraphrase of John Boehner last 60 speeches, and of the last 60 speeches of most republicans...

say it enough times and republican followers will repeat, again, say it enough times and republican followers will repeat, again, say it enough times and republican followers will repeat

 

[adrenaline]

Yes, but they to prevent the health insurance industry from going bankrupt, they might have just put the country on a path towards bankruptcy. There were other alternatives we could have worked on for fixing healthcare, things to fix that drive up cost; Medicare and Medicaid themselves are partially responsible for driving up health insurance costs too.

you realize that the most verbal opponents were the medicare recipients?



When you retire, if medicare is not there, you realize you will have to brave purchasing shoddy individual coverage when you are over the age of 65 and have a fixed income? It also spared private insurance plans from insuring the oldest and the sickest, it left the younger working force to buy their plans.

You realize we spend 400 billion dollars a year on health insurance bureucracy?

Medicare and medicaid is a joy since i only have to hire one biller and coder for them. I have an army ( 45 employees with 5 docs do the math) doing precerts prior auths , fielding phone calls, 6 check in and check out to check insurances on where i can draw labs etc.

Your delusional if you think medicare/medicaid contributes to the cost of health care in this country. I have to pay salaries, workman's comp, disablity, insurance premiums etc for an army of women whose only job is to deal with private health insurance. Tell me that is not wasteful?

as for public education, I am a product of it, my parents subsisted on total salary of less than 35,000 a year after my dad lost his job. My younger brother went to princeton, i went to dartmouth and my sister was too smart and quit Emory to become a ceo of her own software company. There was no way they could afford private education on Long Island New York when tuition over 20 years ago was at least 15,000 a year.

so what you are telling me is that only the rich deserve to educate their kids? My mother cleaned houses and my dad worked so there was no home schooling. I don't think you realize even home schoolers have the luxuary of having one working parent? Guess what, in this recession those homeschoolers are back in public school, now that their housing developer dads or real estate dads are completely broke. The wives are cashing in their nursing degrees, or being full time nannies etc.and going back to work. Thank god this country gives that to me should I ever go broke.




there are numerous studies that show public education does its job.

 

[noblegas]

Public education was necessary to maximize literacy in the population. Left to private/personal means, we'd have ~90% illiteracy, as was the case in England and the US in colonial times. Women were essentially excluded from education.

).

Where are your stats to back up such a statement? According to new york award winning teacher John Taylor Gatto, Literacy was near 100 percent in the United States before the formal introduction to public schools in America , at least amongst the non-slave population.

Before forced schooling, in 1840, literacy rates in New England approached 100 percent, and the popular best-sellers of the time included books the likes of Herman Melville, James Fenimore Cooper, and Ralph Waldo Emerson—all bought by a population consisting mostly of small farmers. Have you ever sat yourself down for a relaxing afternoon with a little leisurely reading—a thirty-page long Emerson essay loaded with Greek mythological allusions, complex sentences with multiple nested appositive phrases and dependent clauses, intricate logic, and a vocabulary that would challenge most graduate students today? I find I can only access early 19th century literature with a great effort at concentration. My attention wanders, I lose the train of the argument, and soon find myself passing my eyeballs over the page, uncomprehendingly.

source : http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter5-6.php , The underground history of american education by jon taylor gatto. . If public education doe s such a fantastic job of educating our american school children, why are 42 million american adults illeterate and 20 percent of all high school graduates classified as illiterateI (http://education-portal.com/article...ndicate_Americans_Have_a_Reading_Problem.html). There is no evidence that being in public schools increase adult literacy and not attending public schools or formal schooling does not mean that you will become illiterate. If that were the case , people such as Ben Franklin , Mark Twain or Malcolm X would not be able to read.

 

[noblegas]

so what you are telling me is that only the rich deserve to educate their kids? My mother cleaned houses and my dad worked so there was no home schooling. I don't think you realize even home schoolers have the luxuary of having one working parent? Guess what, in this recession those homeschoolers are back in public school, now that their housing developer dads or real estate dads are completely broke. The wives are cashing in their nursing degrees, or being full time nannies etc.and going back to work. Thank god this country gives that to me should I ever go broke.

I don't think he ever said that. Whether you want to acknowledge this apparent truth or not, the private sector provides better quality knowledge than the public schools Thanks to the internet. Children don't learn subjects effectively when they are in a setting where they are coerced to learn subjects in a curriculum that they did not create. Why should millions of american children all learn from the same curriculum? We are all born differently and grow up in different environments, so children are not going to want to learn from the same standard curriculum.History was taught to have on a matter of fact basis and we never had any true discussions about why certain historical events occurred . If people received all of their education from public schools , there would never be discussions on the merits of anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism. If kids received all of their education from public schools, you probably wouldn't be taught that the Federal Reserve bank contributed greatly to the economic crash of 1929. If you received only your education only from public schools , there would be no discussions on the topic of athiesm versus theism. Public schools are no longer relevant imho in a society where you can go to youtube and acquire information on your topic of interest whether it be complex variable, the Haitian Revolution are revolutions in particle physics or austrian economics and both the poor and the rich have access to this wonderful tool called the Internet.