PDA

View Full Version : Reconcilliation- the Nuke option



BonMallari
02-22-2010, 01:07 PM
it looks like the administration is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with politics. does anyone believe that the Democrats would have the nutzz to ramrod healthcare thru without Republican support and risk getting thrown out of office at election time..I just dont see it, I know it reeks of strong arm Chicago style politics, what is the end game :confused:

road kill
02-22-2010, 01:18 PM
it looks like the administration is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with politics. does anyone believe that the Democrats would have the nutzz to ramrod healthcare thru without Republican support and risk getting thrown out of office at election time..I just dont see it, I know it reeks of strong arm Chicago style politics, what is the end game :confused:



EGO!!!!:D



rk

Henry V
02-22-2010, 02:14 PM
.....I know it reeks of strong arm Chicago style politics, what is the end game :confused:

Glad to see you are sticking to the script. Funny how it was perfectly acceptable when the shoe was on the other foot. For
The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]
as described at http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/24/budget-reconciliation/

Seems like the current nuclear option being used is the filibuster, but of course, this is just sign of patriotism and has nothing to do with partisanship. Seems like most everything is a "waterloo", doesn't it?.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/72033/original.jpg

YardleyLabs
02-22-2010, 02:51 PM
I don't believe Democrats will use reconciliation (so far less than 20 Senators have agreed although a majority of the House is willing), However, I believe they should. That was the only vehicle Republicans had to pass Bush's agenda and they used it freely. I thought his agenda sucked and believe that the financial collapse was largely attributable to the tax bills that were adopted with only a simple majority using reconciliation. However, it is better to be judged based on the results you achieve rather than based on your failure to achieve any results at all. Obama needs to do the same. Right now that means deciding what health plan he wants and then using any legla procedural process to get it passed. Hopefully, Reid will lose his job after the next election. His weakness as majority leader has been a big part of the problem. Interestingly, if a bill does pass through reconciliation, it would be more likely to include a public plan option which remains one of the most popular aspects of a national health plan even though it has been one of the first things sacrificed in efforts to achieve consensus.

huntinman
02-22-2010, 03:00 PM
I hope they do use reconcilliation. It will be the end of the Dem's for a long time to come if they ignore the will of the people on this. Tone deaf regards...

ducknwork
02-22-2010, 03:27 PM
I hope they do use reconcilliation. It will be the end of the Dem's for a long time to come if they ignore the will of the people on this. Tone deaf regards...

Sure, because we all know how well it works when you change only the color of the fox that guards the henhouse.

What we need is for the leopard to change it's spots, not just rearrange them for a while.

huntinman
02-22-2010, 04:07 PM
Sure, because we all know how well it works when you change only the color of the fox that guards the henhouse.

What we need is for the leopard to change it's spots, not just rearrange them for a while.

How do you propose to do that?

subroc
02-22-2010, 04:34 PM
Sounds good…

The democrats have a vision for health care in the United States. Their vision is an extremely liberal view and doesn’t need or want the taint of republican support. They, the democrats, believe they know what is right for the citizens in the United States, (after all they were elected and are now "in charge") regardless of the groundswell of opposition to the government take over.

It is the liberal destiny to foist healthcare on the masses...democrats will bow to that destiny

Goose
02-22-2010, 04:55 PM
Barry Hussein and his leftist pals don't give a damn about your healthcare. They never did/never will and would really just prefer that you die before 65 so Dear Leader doesn't have to waste social security money on your sorry ass and reduce the surplus population.

Obama's healthcare reform is nothing more than a way to increase tax revenue to offset his huge budget deficits and to keep a bankrupt social security system floating for a few more years. It's another ponzi scheme.

The only thing we'll get with Obama's 'health reforms' are higher taxes. There will never be any improvement to health care.

We live in Cuba now.

Uncle Bill
02-23-2010, 12:08 PM
it looks like the administration is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with politics. does anyone believe that the Democrats would have the nutzz to ramrod healthcare thru without Republican support and risk getting thrown out of office at election time.. I certainly do. These lefty's turned socialist have wanted this for as long as I can remember...meaning since the FDR era... and they have no fear of re-election. It's their form of legacy and feel good politics.

While the majority of this nations voters see the damage being done to our freedoms, this crowd which includes such illuminaries as our own Yardley and his followers on RTF, have zero compunction for foisting this on the citizenry.

As they continue to bray for more government control and taxation to pay for their whims and pork, they couldn't care less about your heirs paying for it. Hey, they can blame it all on Bush! But I suspect there will be little to pay for because it will have crumbled away before their great grandkids arrive.


I just dont see it, I know it reeks of strong arm Chicago style politics, what is the end game :confused:

It's all quite sad to see so many that have lived in and off the greatest nation that ever existed, want to see it all destroyed by their misguided beliefs and class envy being promoted by their messiah and his batch of thugs in the west wing, and those mules in the legislature.

UB

zeus3925
02-23-2010, 02:06 PM
It's all quite sad to see so many that have lived in and off the greatest nation that ever existed, want to see it all destroyed by their misguided beliefs and class envy being promoted by their messiah and his batch of thugs in the west wing, and those mules in the legislature.

UB


I suppose the Republicans are thug free,eh, Bill?

BonMallari
02-23-2010, 05:24 PM
I suppose the Republicans are thug free,eh, Bill?

If you watched the Glenn Beck speech at CPAC this past weekend he said the two parties are identical, they both have their scandals, they both have their pork, and they both have their progressives...we both have career politicians that need to be retired

zeus3925
02-23-2010, 07:41 PM
If you watched the Glenn Beck speech at CPAC this past weekend he said the two parties are identical, they both have their scandals, they both have their pork, and they both have their progressives...we both have career politicians that need to be retired

I am not a Beckie. I don't listen to Crush Limprock, either.

subroc
02-23-2010, 08:00 PM
I am not a Beckie. I don't listen to Crush Limprock, either.

isn't that cute. your a real meanie name caller.

:D chuckling :D

dnf777
02-23-2010, 08:23 PM
I hope they do use reconcilliation. It will be the end of the Dem's for a long time to come if they ignore the will of the people on this. Tone deaf regards...

I believe the "will of the people" is what put Obama in the WH and democratic majorities in both houses of congress. Although the republicans used this, and look where it got them! You may be right.

Don Horstman
02-23-2010, 09:29 PM
Yardley,

The difference is when the Repubs used reconcilliation it was for the purpose of budget bills. "Reconciliation" in the US Congress is only for budget passage purposes and in the event that it is used in a budget reconciliation process the statutes passed with it must contain a "sunset" clause if they are passed by a simple majority (instead of 3/5 or 60 votes)in the Senate while triggering at least one of several "extraneous" provisions as outlined by the Byrd rule. This is why the "Bush" tax cuts have a "sunset" or expiration date of 2010.

I'm not sure how the Healthcare legislation can get around these issues because the healthcare legislation as it is proposed is not a budget AND if it were, it would trigger the "extraneous" provisions aspects of the Byrd rule which would require a "sunset".....I am guessing Senator Reid will not abide by this long standing rule in regards to health care either.

A little more history for you...the Democratic-controlled Senate in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate BUT it also required a 2/3 vote to change Senate rules and this is why the cloture rule remains in place. The filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a minority to affect legislation, so why would they vote to change it. For example, the democrats used cloture extensively to block Bush federal judge nominees....it cuts both ways.....A republic by the way is set up to keep the majority from driving the country off a cliff, and the fillibuster is what makes things work so well. The country has to be very willing and ready for a new idea like this, and then a fillibuster won't stop the legislation. The amazing thing is people blame Republicans when they have not even had the ability to stop legislation with a fillibuster until about three weeks ago. If this is so popular why didn't the Dems pass it in August, September or any other time when they had this overwhelming majority....easy reason...they know the majority of the American people did not vote for this type of change.

I for one find it amazing that they same people who said Bush should follow the polls in regards to Iraq in spite of him winning an election and both houses of congress for his party, now feel President Obama should not listen to the polls. While I disagree with Obama on health care reform, I think it shows leadership to do what you think is right in spite of wether or not it is popular, just the same way I felt about Bush. I do think Obama dropped the ball in not including Republicans in the process, and in allowing Congress to run away with the legislation. I personally feel that if they would start with eliminating the pre-existing conditions clauses, allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, include provisions to reduce the risk of frivolous lawsuits, and not allow illegal aliens to access the system, he would have already had a bill passed. He would be claiming victory and the American people would be looking at reform that doesn't cost a trillion dollars. He could probably have even pushed his state or national exchanges through if he had just not followed the two most partisan hacks in recent memory in Reid and Pelosi.

YardleyLabs
02-23-2010, 10:08 PM
Don,

Actually, the tax bills were only "budget" bills because they were introduced that way to avoid the potential for filibuster. Normally tax changes are not considered part of the budget process which is used to define how much agencies may spend. It is no more of a stretch to consider health reform in the same way since it will involve budgets expenditures and incorporate taxes. The cloture rule can only be changed during the Congressional session by 2/3 majority. However, rules may be adopted at the beginning of each session by simple majority. The next such opportunity is January, 2011.

EDIT: BTW, the real Nuke option is that almost anything may be done by ruling of the chair. This ruling may be challenged by any member, but it only takes a majority vote to sustain the decision of the chair. That was the approach that Republicans threatened to take to prevent Democrats from blocking judicial nominations. The chair was going to rule that the filibuster was out of order and call for a vote. When his decisions was challenged, the Republican majority would then vote to support his ruling. Since the Constitution gives each house of congress sole jurisdiction over its rules, such actions may not be challenged in court.

luvmylabs23139
02-24-2010, 09:21 AM
The dumms could not pass healthcare when they had the super majority. Using the nuclear option at this point is nothing more than a total abuse of power and a violation of the constitution.
THe socialists are trying to destroy this country as we know it!
THEY should all be charged with treason!!!!

Cody Covey
02-24-2010, 10:54 AM
Jeff do you think this should be passed regardless of the polls where the majority of people don't want this?

YardleyLabs
02-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Jeff do you think this should be passed regardless of the polls where the majority of people don't want this?
Most people didn't favor the tax cuts at the time they were passed. Most people didn't favor invading Iraq at the time the war was launched. Most people didn't favor the "surge" at the time it was launched. Most people believe that abortion should be legal even if they believe that some limitations are appropriate. Most people believe gun ownership is a personal right, but also believe some restrictions are appropriate.

Anytime a new policy is being considered, people are bombarded with a lot of information and a lot of disinformation. When you look at polls and break questions down into concrete pieces, the results are often very different from what you get when you ask about a "program" made up of those same pieces. That is definitely true for health care. For example, when asked specifically about whether or not there should be a "public option", there is widespread support. However, when asked about a program that includes a "government takeover" of health care, there is widespread opposition. The difference between the two is propaganda, not policy. No plan proposed has ever included a "government takeover".

We have a representative government where representatives are "hired" to look beyond the emotions of the moment and make decisions that they believe reflect the long term interests and values of their constituents. If they fail, they are "fired". For all of its negatives, I belive that a representative government is better than a pure democracy in large part because public policy is as complex as other parts of our lives and consequences -- intended or not -- cannot be reduced to sound bytes without becoming distorted. It is a shame that our representatives have chosen to become the sources of confusion rather than clarity. However, we get the representatives we deserve and it is still better than rule by an autocratically chosen elite.

Cody Covey
02-24-2010, 12:24 PM
not calling you a liar but can you find a poll more recent then last October that says more people want the public option? I can't, but what i can find is poll where people want insurance reform but not a health care takeover which no matter how you spin it is what they are proposing. If the government is mandating health care and only giving a public option if your current insruance company follows the governments guidelines. Seems to be a slight conflict of interest there for me. Then telling "INSURANCE" companies that they are no longer allowed to increase rates with risk and can't deny people coverage based on pre exsisting conditions. Again i can't go to my car insurance provider after i wreck and demand they fix my car. If the government would let companies provide across state lines (which is FAR more competition then ONE government "option") that would reduce costs dramatically. Then add in tort reform and you have a barrel of fun that doesn't involve the government taking over 1/6th of the economy.

huntinman
02-24-2010, 12:33 PM
85-90% of Americans are satisfied with the insurance and health care they currently have. We could save billions by coming up with a program to help the people who are falling through the cracks without tearing down the best system in the world.

subroc
02-24-2010, 12:58 PM
nuclear option...

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Hew
02-24-2010, 01:17 PM
nuclear option...

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Subroc, you're normally sparse with your words, but if you don't mind, that video deserves more hype than that. ;)

This video is a parade of Senate Democrats, including Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, et al whining about the very thing that some of them are now proposing that they do. It's a "must-see" so that you can compare their words a few years ago with today.

road kill
02-24-2010, 01:30 PM
Nancy does not have the votes!!
About 1 dozen short.


rk

subroc
02-24-2010, 01:31 PM
Hew

There is a big difference in whether you are buying or selling.

Henry V
02-24-2010, 02:17 PM
If you watched the Glenn Beck speech at CPAC this past weekend he said the two parties are identical, they both have their scandals, they both have their pork, and they both have their progressives...we both have career politicians that need to be retired
If you did not see it the other night, you have to check out Jon Stewart take on Beck's CPAC speech. Hilarious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/stewart-to-glenn-beck-you_n_472826.html

YardleyLabs
02-24-2010, 03:08 PM
not calling you a liar but can you find a poll more recent then last October that says more people want the public option? I can't, but what i can find is poll where people want insurance reform but not a health care takeover which no matter how you spin it is what they are proposing. If the government is mandating health care and only giving a public option if your current insruance company follows the governments guidelines. Seems to be a slight conflict of interest there for me. Then telling "INSURANCE" companies that they are no longer allowed to increase rates with risk and can't deny people coverage based on pre exsisting conditions. Again i can't go to my car insurance provider after i wreck and demand they fix my car. If the government would let companies provide across state lines (which is FAR more competition then ONE government "option") that would reduce costs dramatically. Then add in tort reform and you have a barrel of fun that doesn't involve the government taking over 1/6th of the economy.
I'm not sure the question has been posed since then. The issue died when it was not part of any bill. Most people now would rather not see health care continue at the center of public dispute. However, when they have focused on the public option, support remained steady at about 60-70% (See, for example, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5401123.shtml).

Cody Covey
02-24-2010, 03:57 PM
Do you have any idea what Oct 20 was Jeff? All the polls about the public option are from the 20th of October haha.

Gerry Clinchy
02-24-2010, 06:51 PM
I heard the audio clips of Senators Obama and Biden's comments on the "nuke option" on radio today. Yup, sure depends who's got the big stick.

Also interesting was the recent story of Dan Williams, Premier (akin to governor) of the province of Newfoundland in Canada. He was dx'd with a heart murmur (in Canada) that was called "moderate". Was told to come back in 6 mos. for a check-up. 6 months later the murmur was "severe" and he was advised to have it repaired immediately. In Canada, his only two choices of procedures, both of which involved breaking ribs.

He contacted a medical doctor friend (formerly of Newfoundland, but now practicing in the US), who advised him to go to a dr in Miami. There Williams was able to get the procedure he needed without bones being broken; a surgical procedure of minimal invasiveness was performed through an entry in his armpit.

Williams was fearful that if he got immediate medical attention in Canada he would be accused of "line jumping". However, his decision was based more on, in his own words, "My heart. My health. My choice." No matter what, Williams could not win on this one ... either be called a line-jumper or indict the Canadian health care system by going to the US for his care.

It was an important point, here, that the procedure he got (which allowed much quicker recovery & return to work) was simply not available to him in Canada. I didn't get to hear all the detailson that aspect, since I was at my destination.

YardleyLabs
02-24-2010, 07:28 PM
Gerry,

The problem with anecdotal medicine is that it seldom proves anything of value. For years, people routinely went ot Mexico for treatments that were not available in America. Today they increasingly go there for treatments they can't afford in America. Does that mean that care in America is no good and that care is better in Mexico? i don't think so. When my then wife had Graves Disease, she was repeatedly told that the only treatment was removal of her thyroid, preferably through radiation treatment -- something we were not thrilled about since we planned on another child. I used my "poltical" connections and found one of the top endocrinologists in the country who treated her medically rather than surgically. Three years later she was completely cured and we had our second child. It happened that the physician worked in a City operated hospital in New York. Does that mean private medicine doesn't work? No, but it didn't work when we needed it. Unfortunately, when we move beyond anecdotes to statistics on mortality, morbidity and longevity, the US health care system begins to show some warts. I suspect those warts have less to do with the care it is possible to get than they do with the care you are most likely to get if you are one of the 30-40% of our population without private insurance.

Gerry Clinchy
02-24-2010, 07:55 PM
Jeff, I wouldn't call this just anecdotal. The procedures choice is a real one. The procedure was not available to the Premier in Canada. If the Governor of NY needed a medical procedure available in the US, why would he go to some other country.

There is certainly always value in a second opinion (as your wife's case demonstrates). One would think that the particular individual in this case would have sought out the procedure in Canada first before resorting to traveling to Miami.

To follow up, I didn't mention before, since I didn't catch the organization's name that published the figures. However, deaths from cancer in US 549/100K people; in France 4300/100K people. I'm sorry I just did not get the name of the organization that publishes the stats that were quoted.

As you say, medical care can have its warts in any country.

While it seems that our average lifespan here does not measure up with some other countries, there are definitely some ways in which US healthcare does pretty well.

I do believe that our largest problem is the cost of our health care. Solving that problem is not an easy one.

There is a cost for the technology that saves lives today. And I really liked having anesthetic when I had a tooth pulled several years ago :-) The device I mentioned that uses a computer and motors to enable paraplegics to "walk" sufficiently to get around their own homes will be $30,000 to $40,000. Not cheap. Will it save $ in attendant care that a paraplegic might otherwise require? Might do that. The device does not require having payroll taxes or vacation time; not to mention health care benefits :-)

Uncle Bill
02-26-2010, 07:11 PM
Dayum, this almost slipped by with no one giving a crap. Just another case of Yardley's bloviating, and zero check on the facts that all his guppy followers are quick to overlook.

Sorry for being late to the party, and questioning your sang-froid flippency concerning the "facts"; especially your use of that superlative, "MOST".


Most people didn't favor the tax cuts at the time they were passed.

Really???



Most people didn't favor invading Iraq at the time the war was launched.

From your view through the eyes of the UN??? Coulda fooled me. Even one of your favorite toadies, Algore, and even that Heinz 57 Ketchup phoney favored what was done...ORIGINALLY!!! But it's hard to use ALL the facts eh? Anything that supports the liberal cause, and you'll concoct any half-truth you can.

Your servile actions toward anything Obama is really amazing, given what you portray...namely an educated person. But the more I read your posts, and how easily you succomb to the socialist movement, I'm thinking you are nothing more than a charlatan.

In the future, please define what you are calling "most people", because it certainly doesn't include me and the majority of the Americans that count themselves as 'conservatives'.


Most people didn't favor the "surge" at the time it was launched. Most people believe that abortion should be legal even if they believe that some limitations are appropriate. Most people believe gun ownership is a personal right, but also believe some restrictions are appropriate.




By my count, you got 1 out of 5.

But keep spewing the bombastic rhetoric. The rest of the Obama sycophants expect you to keep their skirts full of hot air, as they drift about in fantasy land.

UB

Uncle Bill
02-26-2010, 07:37 PM
I hope they do use reconcilliation. It will be the end of the Dem's for a long time to come if they ignore the will of the people on this. Tone deaf regards...


This is not meant to be disagreeable, Bill. But in MFWBDAO, aren't the Dems in deep dodo regardless of which way they go?

Good grief, they've had the full boat in Congress, Senate and White House, and they've failed to accomplish anything. You can bet your bottom buck there are a batch of something-for-nothing groupies that don't give a damn what their political life is worth, they want free healthcare.

That's why I'm still concerned about this. I doubt the Fat Lady has started singing yet. That batch of Chicago gangsters that hold the White House are far from done. And they don't give a damn what happens to the party, as long as they have turned the nation into a socialistic oligarchy. It's all about their power NOW...they'll deal with the losses later.

They still have all their Acorn cronies, all dressed up in new coverup costumes, ready for the next phase of "Chicago politics as usual."

After getting knocked out of the ring in 3 previous fights, the WH gang is gonna get serious, and this falls elections won't come as easy as the TEA Party members are expecting. MUCH to be fearful of, in my view. Far too many that couldn't care, and would sell their vote in a NY minute.

It will take some real vigilance to keep reminding folks about that "hope and change" they have voted in a couple years ago, and how close we all came to having so many of our freedoms taken from us.

I do believe that many have had an awakening, but it's not time to be celebrating over a few victories, or thinking this trend is a done deal.

UB

YardleyLabs
02-26-2010, 08:14 PM
By my count, you got 1 out of 5.

But keep spewing the bombastic rhetoric. The rest of the Obama sycophants expect you to keep their skirts full of hot air, as they drift about in fantasy land.

UB
Iraq War Support: In the two months leading up to the invasion, a majority of the American public was willing to support an attack but a large majority wanted to give more time to weapons inspectors to locate WMD's or determine they were not present. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_US_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq. Obviously, once again, the American public was right in questioning the facts fed to them by the propaganda machine since no such weapons were found (Yes, I know about the yellowcake that was there in 1992 and had been under on-going UN supervision. That was not viewed as a threat.).
2003 Tax Cuts: New York Times/CBS Poll, May 2003. "''Bush and the Issues'' Taxes Which is a better way to improve the national economy: cutting taxes or reducing the federal budget deficit? CUTTING TAXES: 31% REDUCING DEFICIT: 58 NEITHER: 2 NO OPINION: 9. See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/us/bush-s-support-strong-despite-tax-cut-doubts.html?pagewanted=1
Surge: As of January 2007, depending on the pollster and the wording of the question, anywhere from a plurality to an overwhelming majority of respondents opposed an increase in troops in Iraq. See http://www.pollster.com/blogs/iraq_polls_surge_and_diverge.php
Abortion: Pew reserrch from 2008 shows a 54% - 40% margin favoring legalized abortion with majority support for various controls. This shifted some in 2009 so that pro-abortion now enjoys only a 4% margin over those who want legal abortions ended. See http://www.lifenews.com/nat5529.html (a pro-life advocate).
Gun control: For years, polls have shown a split of about 60% - 40% favoring stricter gun control laws. This has shifted strongly and now only a simple plurality favor stricter gun control laws. (See http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html). Interestingly a poll of NRA members found that the majority supported stronger controls over gun show sales and stronger controls to prevent sales to potential terrorists. (See http://www.fromthesquare.org/?p=803)I think that shows pretty good support for five out of five statements. Not bad considering that the entire point of the statement was that polls change constantly and are strongly affected by the rhetoric of the moment.

blind ambition
02-27-2010, 03:53 PM
Jeff, I wouldn't call this just anecdotal. The procedures choice is a real one. The procedure was not available to the Premier in Canada. If the Governor of NY needed a medical procedure available in the US, why would he go to some other country.

There is certainly always value in a second opinion (as your wife's case demonstrates). One would think that the particular individual in this case would have sought out the procedure in Canada first before resorting to traveling to Miami.
Faith in Canadian health care

Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province's health care system.
"I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people," he said.
"We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done, and I went to somebody who's doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week."


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/23/nl-williams-heartcp-230210.html#ixzz0gloF97Tr


To follow up, I didn't mention before, since I didn't catch the organization's name that published the figures. However, deaths from cancer in US 549/100K people; in France 4300/100K people. I'm sorry I just did not get the name of the organization that publishes the stats that were quoted.

As you say, medical care can have its warts in any country.

While it seems that our average lifespan here does not measure up with some other countries, there are definitely some ways in which US healthcare does pretty well.

I do believe that our largest problem is the cost of our health care. Solving that problem is not an easy one.
Precisely the reason every major developed nation has a system of national healthcare. Most of these governments and their citizens recognize that health care is not a consumer good or service as provided for in the traditional free market sense, its nature is more along the lines of essential public welfare analogous to police and fire protection. As I understand it your country already provides free healthcare to those who don't work and that the real tragedy of your current system is that too many working people can't afford either coverage or to be sick from an existing condition.
There is a cost for the technology that saves lives today. And I really liked having anesthetic when I had a tooth pulled several years ago :-) The device I mentioned that uses a computer and motors to enable paraplegics to "walk" sufficiently to get around their own homes will be $30,000 to $40,000. Not cheap. Will it save $ in attendant care that a paraplegic might otherwise require? Might do that. The device does not require having payroll taxes or vacation time; not to mention health care benefits :-)


I have grown up almost the whole of my life never having to worry about the cost of being ill or injured. I just can't understand why your country is turning itself inside out over this issue...

YardleyLabs
02-27-2010, 04:41 PM
I have grown up almost the whole of my life never having to worry about the cost of being ill or injured. I just can't understand why your country is turning itself inside out over this issue...
Great post. I wish I could say the same.

Gerry Clinchy
02-27-2010, 05:23 PM
The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done, and I went to somebody who's doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week."


But there should have been some place in Canada that could do it? Why go to Miami? If the surgery is being done 3, 4 times a day, 5, 6 days week, it must not be extremely "rare" or "experimental".


Precisely the reason every major developed nation has a system of national healthcare. Most of these governments and their citizens recognize that health care is not a consumer good or service as provided for in the traditional free market sense,

Someone mentioned earlier, and I've been thinking about it. Mexico has free health care for its citizens. Yet, they come to the US (sometimes at great risk) to find work, earn money. When push comes to shove, eating is more important than health care? Opportunity is more important than health care?

Obviously, in Canada the economy is better than Mexico, so not a lot of people feel the US has so much more to offer. OTOH, Canada's population is much smaller than the US as well. And, there is no question that the US (right or wrong) has many obligations of military presence in many places around the world, that are larger than Canada's. Ironically, I just recall reading where the UN was calling on the US to take larger responsibility for some military presence in some country or other. Gee ... why not ask Russia, or France, to do that? Aren't they afraid of US imperialistic intentions?


I have grown up almost the whole of my life never having to worry about the cost of being ill or injured.

I would say that someone from Great Britain might have said the same for quite a long while into their govt-run health care system. Now, however, those over a certain age may no longer find that the system works in their favor.

If the US is to have a universal health care/insurance system, then it needs to take into account where other countries have succeeded & where they failed. I haven't heard much about that in the proposals. Did anybody do their homework on that?

I agree with Jeff, that fhe only way such a major overhaul can succeed is with universal, or near-universal coverage. OTOH, that hasn't worked so well in MA where the 97% participation still hasn't been enough to keep the program solvent. Is the population of MA so drastically different from the rest of the country? If not, then one has to examine why that program is not is not self-sustaining there ... and apply the knowledge to a plan proposed for the entire country.

It would appear that Canada's plan also has some warts. By his own admission Williams indicates Newfoundland and Labrador have some problem delivering sophisticated care to its limited population (perhaps also more rural than some other parts of the country?).

It would also be wise to examine how medical R&D progresses in those countries with universal care programs. Are those countries where new innovations/advances in care/treatments thrive?

Many questions in my mind. Answers need to come from those who can study the questions carefully before replacing a moderately good system with something else.

YardleyLabs
02-27-2010, 05:48 PM
...

I agree with Jeff, that fhe only way such a major overhaul can succeed is with universal, or near-universal coverage. OTOH, that hasn't worked so well in MA where the 97% participation still hasn't been enough to keep the program solvent. Is the population of MA so drastically different from the rest of the country? If not, then one has to examine why that program is not is not self-sustaining there ... and apply the knowledge to a plan proposed for the entire country.

...
It is unrealistic to have suc a plan at the state level since you cannot effectively limit the ability of people from other states to come in, buy insurance for a month, receive the care they need and then leave. Neither can you effectively enforce mandates for coverage. In the 70's, New York adopted a Medicaid program offering far greater benefits than surrounding states. Welfae office in New Jersey, and even states as far away as Florida, would pay their most expensive cases to move to New York City. We had two quadriplegics that moved to NYC so that they could marry and receive 24 hour in home care without charge. The township government where they lived helped make the arrangements for their move and even provided financial support during the transition before they began to receive their New York benefits. When I was actually running Medicaid, I read a heartwarming story in the newspapers about a young child coming from Israel to receive heart surgery at one of our major hospitals. That night I began wondering about how that had been set up.

As I investigated, I found that there was an informal group of workers in the Medicaid office that regularly arranged such care for people from other countries -- predominantly Israel. They pre-qualified the people for Medicaid and assured the hospital providing care that they would be paid. The worst part was that what they and the surrounding states were doing was not illegal. Efforts by the City to impose residency requirements were overturned in court. Efforts to modify the law were thwarted by those states taking advantage of the situation to send their patients to New York. I could not even discipline the staff.

To be effective, a plan must be national and must address how situations will be handled to control medical tourism. BTW, this is actually becoming an issue in Mexico where more and more Americans are moving to border towns in Mexico to receive very inexpensive care that they could not afford in America.

Marvin S
02-27-2010, 05:52 PM
I have grown up almost the whole of my life never having to worry about the cost of being ill or injured. I just can't understand why your country is turning itself inside out over this issue...

That's funny - so have I. &, I would venture that the quality of medical care I have experienced might be a tad higher than what you have experienced. I have never participated in a plan where I was not obligated for a portion of the cost, generally 20%.

But I also didn't abuse myself with my lifestyle choices, had reasonably good genes, & always had my choice of doctors to patronize ;-).


If the US is to have a universal health care/insurance system, then it needs to take into account where other countries have succeeded & where they failed. I haven't heard much about that in the proposals. Did anybody do their homework on that?

It would also be wise to examine how medical R&D progresses in those countries with universal care programs. Are those countries where new innovations/advances in care/treatments thrive?

Many questions in my mind. Answers need to come from those who can study the questions carefully before replacing a moderately good system with something else.

I believe if anyone had a small smidgen of faith that the above, specifically the last sentence, had been accomplished there would not be the hue & cry that this plan is a piece of excrement :cool:.

blind ambition
02-27-2010, 06:41 PM
But there should have been some place in Canada that could do it? Why go to Miami? If the surgery is being done 3, 4 times a day, 5, 6 days week, it must not be extremely "rare" or "experimental".

Hi Gerry, don't mean to hound you but believe me the idea that one of our politicians might go outside the country for any medical procedure is abhorrent to me. So, I had to go looking deeper, something our news media didn't; it appears that the procedure for non sternum aortic valve repair though new, is relatively common. The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation could have helped PREMIER Williams as could a Specialist in Vancouver http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcreports/2004/04feb05/heartvalve.html.

Perhaps Florida's famed climate had more to do with the decision than the Surgeon's skills? .

Someone mentioned earlier, and I've been thinking about it. Mexico has free health care for its citizens. Yet, they come to the US (sometimes at great risk) to find work, earn money. When push comes to shove, eating is more important than health care? Opportunity is more important than health care?

Obviously, in Canada the economy is better than Mexico, so not a lot of people feel the US has so much more to offer. OTOH, Canada's population is much smaller than the US as well. And, there is no question that the US (right or wrong) has many obligations of military presence in many places around the world, that are larger than Canada's. Ironically, I just recall reading where the UN was calling on the US to take larger responsibility for some military presence in some country or other. Gee ... why not ask Russia, or France, to do that? Aren't they afraid of US imperialistic intentions?



I would say that someone from Great Britain might have said the same for quite a long while into their govt-run health care system. Now, however, those over a certain age may no longer find that the system works in their favor.
My only health care experience in the UK was as a child recently though my knowledge is purely anecdotal, my uncle suffers from a pulmonary disease, he raves about his care and treatment and so too of the beauty of the home care staff sent to his residence to look after him and his domestic chores!
If the US is to have a universal health care/insurance system, then it needs to take into account where other countries have succeeded & where they failed. I haven't heard much about that in the proposals. Did anybody do their homework on that?

I agree with Jeff, that fhe only way such a major overhaul can succeed is with universal, or near-universal coverage. OTOH, that hasn't worked so well in MA where the 97% participation still hasn't been enough to keep the program solvent. Is the population of MA so drastically different from the rest of the country? If not, then one has to examine why that program is not is not self-sustaining there ... and apply the knowledge to a plan proposed for the entire country.
Agreed, as I understand it the medical system is in need of fine tuning but revolutionary change is required on the insurance side. This is the problem I see here in Canada is that the Provincial health insurance premiums have been kept artificailly low...My payments to our health plan for myself and my wife just increased by $10.00 per month to $104.00, wait for it...that's for the two of us , not each!
It would appear that Canada's plan also has some warts. By his own admission Williams indicates Newfoundland and Labrador have some problem delivering sophisticated care to its limited population (perhaps also more rural than some other parts of the country?).

It would also be wise to examine how medical R&D progresses in those countries with universal care programs. Are those countries where new innovations/advances in care/treatments thrive?

Many questions in my mind. Answers need to come from those who can study the questions carefully before replacing a moderately good system with something else.

Gerry, can't look it up now but I'm certain that some of the advancements in Western Medicine and pharmacology over the past 50 years have come from outside the USA. Look, a Nation which can handle wars on two fronts, bail out the investment banks and Auto Industry, should be able to provide at least the same level of healthcare to its working citizens as it does to its welfare recipients.

blind ambition
02-27-2010, 07:00 PM
That's funny - so have I. &, I would venture that the quality of medical care I have experienced might be a tad higher than what you have experienced. I have never participated in a plan where I was not obligated for a portion of the cost, generally 20%.

.

I'm delighted that you applied the caveat "might" to your broad statement or I would have demanded to know how you accessed my medical records and the assessed my quality of care:D I will tell you though that you may find the measures on most standards by which healthcare is judged would not support you. Be that as it may, I have had the pleasure of being under the knife in both our Nations as well as the UK and aside from seeing the whopping great bill from Portland's Emanuel Hospital that my race promoter's insurance was obliged to pay, I found little obvious difference in care.

Marvin S
02-27-2010, 08:10 PM
I'm delighted that you applied the caveat "might" to your broad statement or I would have demanded to know how you accessed my medical records and the assessed my quality of care:D I will tell you though that you may find the measures on most standards by which healthcare is judged would not support you. Be that as it may, I have had the pleasure of being under the knife in both our Nations as well as the UK and aside from seeing the whopping great bill from Portland's Emanuel Hospital that my race promoter's insurance was obliged to pay, I found little obvious difference in care.

I used the word might because I have never had to wait to schedule a medical procedure, such as the politician did :cool:. Have done a major bypass a few years back & the rotator cuff recently so have a little experience with our system's ability to get one fixed up :). I would imagine that once a person is scheduled there would be little difference in care quality.

Gerry Clinchy
02-27-2010, 08:34 PM
Yardley

As I investigated, I found that there was an informal group of workers in the Medicaid office that regularly arranged such care for people from other countries -- predominantly Israel.

Hey, why didn't these patients go to some other country where they could get this care? Certainly some of the European countries are closer to Israel than the US. If these Euro countries have such great programs, why come to the US?

I'm surprised that NYS could not at least require that the patient be a US citizen to receive benefits.

I believe that this same scenario was also duplicated in basic social welfare benefits. Without tracking this, however, wouldn't it fall into the realm of anecdotal info? I wonder if MA has kept any records of this type of thing?


To be effective, a plan must be national and must address how situations will be handled to control medical tourism. BTW, this is actually becoming an issue in Mexico where more and more Americans are moving to border towns in Mexico to receive very inexpensive care that they could not afford in America.

I can surely agree that the actuarial benefit of a national plan, but still think that the existing universal plans like MA and HI should be examined carefully to see if all their financial troubles are simply from medical tourism, or from other sources as well.

Or is our US problem that we establish such lavish plans that they exceed anything available elsewhere?

I believe these US citizens pay some kind of fee ("premium") in order to get the Mexican benefits.