Bombshell: CBO chief tells Congress ObamaCare will “significantly expand” federal spending; Report: Bipartisan deal close?
posted at 2:20 pm on July 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m using “bombshell” unironically. You and I know that it’ll explode spending but The One’s actually been pitching this boondoggle — insanely — as a cost-saving measure, even though it’s common knowledge that ObamaCare 1.0, a.k.a. Medicare, is well on its way to bankrupting America.
The cat’s all the way out of the bag now.
Conrad: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?
Elmendorf: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs…
As we wrote in our letter to you and Senator Gregg, the creation of a new subsidy for health insurance, which is a critical part of expanding health insurance coverage in our judgement, would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care. It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate and to offset that there has to be very substantial reductions in other parts of the federal commitment to health care, either on the tax revenue side through changes in the tax exclusion or on the spending side through reforms in Medicare and Medicaid. Certainly reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages, and we are still analyzing the reforms in the House package. Legislation was only released as you know two days ago. But changes we have looked at so far do not represent the fundamental change on the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.
It’s a month to the day since the first time Elmendorf kneecapped Hopenchange by announcing that not only would an early iteration of ObamaCare cost a trillion dollars over the next decade, it would still leave millions uninsured. The money question now: Will this further embolden the Blue Dogs to torpedo the House bill? They’ve got tons of media momentum behind them, believe it or not. Drudge is leading with the New York Post’s story about a 57% combined income tax rate in New York City on top earners once the ObamaCare surtax passes while ABC flags a study showing that combined top tax rates in fully 39 states will soar to over 50% as well. The public’s not buying The One’s crap about how the rich are going to pay for this either: According to Rasmussen, 78% expect the tax burden for ObamaCare to trickle down to the middle class. And in McClatchy’s new poll, the split between those who think expanding coverage is top priority and those who think top priority is controlling costs is now just two points, within the margin of error — even as the number who say the country’s on the right track has dropped 12 points since June, confirming the Hotline poll from yesterday. Like Karl says, the mask is off and The One’s political capital is at ebb tide. If fiscal conservatives can’t stop ObamaCare now — or at least vastly improve it — then we never will.
Update: Even supersquishy Olympia Snowe’s getting cold feet:
But beyond policy, Snowe and other moderates are bristling at the time table set by President Obama – he wants bills passed through the House and Senate before the bodies leave for their August recess on August 7.
She told reporters last night that’s probably not enough time. And she pointed to the creation of Medicare in the 1960s, which she said took a lot longer than the time table set out by Democrats this year.
Update: A must-read post from Kaus. If you’d told me in advance that ObamaCare would run into problems, the very last reason I’d anticipate would be poor salesmanship by Obama. And yet:
He lectures: It’s also time, Obama tells his viewers, to lose weight, and stop smoking, and pull up your socks. Later on he tells people that they are foolish to prefer brand name drugs to generic drugs, and to want multiple medical tests. “If you only need one test, why do you want five tests?” Stop clinging to your tests! You’re worse than those people in Pennsylvania.
Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law? And get a chance to endure increased taxes for the privilege. Obama’s supposed to be rallying support from voters, not castigating them. Outside the S& M parlor, most people do not enjoy paying to be disciplined.
Update: Uh oh.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus(D-Mont.) said Thursday that he hopes to have a bipartisan deal on a health care reform bill by the end of the day.
He made the remarks after huddling for about two hours with five Finance Committee members most closely involved in the negotiations. It was the first time Baucus acknowledged a time frame for reaching an agreement.
“We are meeting very aggressively today,” Baucus said of the bipartisan group, which plans to meet again at 1:30 p.m. “We will keep meeting all day long. I hope we can reach some kind of agreement by the end of the day, but having said that, it depends on what kind it is.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
No, you don’t. You may think you do, but you don’t.
As for tort reform, the HMOs tried this “no lawsuit” method.
That was the deal. It just so backfired. They have spent 20 years undoing the harm.
I’d suggest another approach. Limits on punitive damages.
In other words, don’t cut off tort. Do cut off punitive damages.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
AMA represents less then 30% of all the doctors…and you have to assume not all AMA doctors support this.
right2bright on July 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM
I absolutely agree with this. Universal health care won’t lower costs. What would lower costs is if people paid for health services from a stack of dollar bills that they kept in their own bank account. When 50 people are involved in the decision to pay or not pay, costs can only go up.
hawksruleva on July 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM
The worst part is that they only represent something like 20% of the nation’s medical doctors.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Yep. A lesson on how state backed insurance kills the private marke.
lorien1973 on July 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
My other forward-thinking idea is that we would truly be better off if we did invest in the “Doc-in-the-boxes” as a distribution of basic care.
They are already out there, or at least they are in my city.
They are perfect for so much stuff that now ends up in hospital ER rooms. That is way more expensive for taxpayers because of the overhead.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM
See plastic surgery and Lasik for examples.
WashJeff on July 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
You have lost whatever shred of credibility you ever had with that retarded statement. Why do over 35,000 people die of the flu each year?
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 4:25 PM
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowjonesdjonline000758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill
Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill
If this is such a great plan why are there Democrats that are blocking it???????????????
And why haven’t any democrats pledged to use their plan for thier healthcare????
Why won’t they use their own plan and why should we if its not good enough for them??????????????
elduende on July 16, 2009 at 4:25 PM
This is what drives so many people nuts…
You make a wholesale statement of fact…then when challenged you ignore it (because you are in error).
I will ask again…
What “many versions” are you confused about…what many versions are being discussed by congress.
right2bright on July 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Well, my take on that issue is that preventive care has ushered some problems. Some people really think Prevention is a massage. *haha
And the industry really did go along with that expansion.
So some of our cost increases are related to elevated expectations.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Romneycare, Kennedy’s version, the House bill, the bipartisan version…..
Have YOU read them all?
Sorry, but my obsession is not that deep! :)
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Ignorance really must be bliss. Where can I get me some of that?
capejasmine on July 16, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Those are all tweeks on the same plan. They’re not different versions or competing ideas at all.
BadgerHawk on July 16, 2009 at 4:30 PM
It is sad that are hopes are pinned on a bunch of “blue dogs” who should actually be called “pink p*ssies”. They will fold like a tent when Rahm gets on the line and the arm twisting begins. We are doomed.
echosyst on July 16, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Yeah, expectations like you can get something for nothing. You get what you pay for. How about you pay for your healthcare, and I pay for mine?
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 4:31 PM
They need to kill this thing. There might be a bipartisan deal, but I have my doubts. I say wait and see.
Terrye on July 16, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I’ll take your word on that.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Violence? That’s about personal choices and, no, I have nothing to do with that.
I suppose Bush’s war could be blamed for “violence.”
I disagree. That’s about people and their intolerance or violent natures.
Me? I just might pop off verbally here once in a while.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Ann, you may have stated at one time or another what party you consider yourself in, politically, but I never caught it. I am assuming that you are a liberal who just enjoys being abused on a regular basis. I have one thing to say about Bush’s Wars: I don’t care if there were ever any WMD. Millions of people are now liberated from an absolute tyranny. Can you honestly say that the people in Iraq are not better off without Sadam and his sons pillaging and raping and murdering? Also, on topic, the plan as it stands would cover my family of five. We live in Texas where the standard of living is very high and affordable. We don’t need the welfare state to take care of our children. This plan is about control, not about insuring poor people. In my area of the world, we are fairly well off. Why would the idiots in congress cover my family? The fact that the plan covers illegals is enough for all of them to be hauled out and put on a bus for home.
TXMomof3 on July 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Honey, there is only one bill being debated right now on the hill…there is no confusion, except by you.
You pointed out bills discussed long ago, that’s what I thought…you make an error, then try to cover it.
Romneycare is not being discussed by congress (romneycare refers to his 2006 proposal)…get it now?
The “bipartisan” doesn’t exist…it hasn’t been even discussed, just a rumor.
You stepped in it…you should have just apologized, admitted your erred.
You are banned to the childrens table to read and learn before you can post again…
right2bright on July 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
AnninCa:
I am sorry. But I just do not trust these people to deal with this problem. My Mom went through some of the same things your mother did, but I still do not trust these people to do anything but screw things up. A friend of mine lost his insurance and when he tried to get new coverage, they sent back his check. They did not want him…but I still think that Obamacare would be a disaster. It would only make a difficult situation worse.
Terrye on July 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Well that’s good because in 4 or 5 years after this catastrophe passes, all incentive to be a Dr will cease to exist and there won’t be any left. And you know what the hilariously sad and ironic thing about it is…they will be paying for their own demise through the surtax on “the rich.” It’s diabolical…
Youngs98 on July 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Well my family closed up shop, fired 21 employees, and relocated operations offshore. I suggest any of you productive types do the same. Leave nothing for the socialists. With nothing to tax you starve them. The whole socialist enterprise implodes then. Fck Obama and fck socialist healthcare.
elduende on July 16, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I don’t care who they bribe to back this plan, history says it all for me and the federal government has a track record that can’t be ignored. What’s the old saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. And in D.C. good intentions aren’t even part of the equation.
Cindy Munford on July 16, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Analogies rarely work. :)
No, my comment was about violence being threatened.
In the election, I was horrified to hear election officials stating that if super delegates were truly to vote for Hillary, “blood would run in the street.”
That was the same thing as what I hear about this.
Both parties are bullying.
Both are wrong.
Even if I lose totally, and I have many times on political issues, I do not advocate violence or participate in anything remotely close. I think people who do are probably mentally ill.
They do not respect a basic social contract, which is that we respect differences of opinion, we come together, we vote, and we live with the outcome, whether we like it or not.
Anything short of that is anarchy in my opinion. I do not support anarchists.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Actually you do need a doctor for the flu, especially if you are in a risk group with higher incidence of flu related deaths. Many ailments are now treated by nurse practitioners.
No, you don’t. You may think you do, but you don’t.
Umm, yes you do. I’m diabetic, and yes you do. Did you ever go on an IV for dehydration after taking Nyquil? I go to an internist instead of a GP because GPs are clueless about how to treat diabetic patients. I go to a retina specialist instead of an optician as well. Even ophthalmologists aren’t adequately trained for diabetics. My endocrinologist is my main doctor, but he doesn’t venture into my kidneys or feet. It will be idiots like you determining what is covered and what is not covered. People that think they’re educated because they have read “Diabetic Health Care for Dummies”.
What you really need is tort reform. I have a friend that is an OBGYN. She said the first thing she does if she needed to use foreceps is to call her lawyer.
As for tort reform, the HMOs tried this “no lawsuit” method.
That was the deal. It just so backfired. They have spent 20 years undoing the harm.
Just what are you talking about? They cannot have a “no lawsuit” approach as that implies they have some special legal exclusion, which they do not have. So pleasae explain what you are talking about.
I’d suggest another approach. Limits on punitive damages.
In other words, don’t cut off tort. Do cut off punitive damages.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
I agree, that is what I meant to say.
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM
I sympathize. However, we already hate the government. What’s one more reason, I say. *haha
Seriously, it can’t be worse than what I’m seeing today.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Makes me wonder what kind of threats, or promises are made, to try and strong arm some into voting for this?
Is Rahm that convincing, or intimidating, or is the promise of keeping your seat for life in exchange for a yea vote, the whipped cream on this crap pie?
capejasmine on July 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Amazingly, Ann has a very valid point here. People are developing a bad habit of running to their doctor for all kinds of trifling things, and it’s straining the system when people with SERIOUS stuff come in. A little preventative care coupled with some a bit of backbone stiffening would do wonders.
Dark-Star on July 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Youngs98 on July 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
+10 Sad but very, very true. Especially in light of the fact that July 1 has come and gone, and it will now be a minimum of 8 years before any increase in the supply of new doctors (U.S. trained that is) would be available to meet increased demand which will arise from all the newly insured.
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Bill Clinton introduced a diabetes program that transformed the approach. I am not close to the details, but I definitely agree. Same with geriatrics.
And I agree, GP’s are phasing out.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Let’s start with, this will kill the economy. Right now, we’re struggling to keep our wealth, although, that’s probably in vain. When the economy goes, unemployment sky rockets, and we’re all living in tents on camp grounds, scouring for food, and any modern convenience…who will pay for this wonderful health plan? Hmm? With no tax revenue, it will go to pot, and so will any chance of anyone having any health care.
Oh! Except for those elite duds in D.C. They will always find funding for themselves. See the video of the execs from the bankrupt Social Security, on their $700,000 tax payer paid for retreat in Arizona, at a resort, so they could relax, and relieve their stress?
Stress? They still have a job. Now tell those who are on the brink, of losing everything, and those who have lost everything, about stress, and the fact that some of their tax dollars went to pay for this retreat.
Government sucks, and I sure as hell don’t trust them with mine, or anyone elses health care.
capejasmine on July 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Im in the process of outsourcing much of my business. It’s the only option with two parties pushing us towards socialism and a public education system designed to churn out citizens willing to subvert to the state. It’s a losing battle for a business owner.
True_King on July 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Cheer up, the Statists are going to Fail and fail big time, like they always do, it’s just a question of how much damage they will cause to the rest of us in their spectacular failure.
Look how much time Statist trolls Anna CAK & Johnknee pads have spent trolling here.
Desperation is starting to creep in.
Did you see the some the text for the ad recruiting the Fauxbamabots:
What the H*ll does all that mean anyways?
They’re still using the stupid ‘Change’ mantra – change to what? They can’t even specify to their Obots what that means, because if they did, no one would want what they’re selling.
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM
A lot of 24/7 media-feeding involved there. Every day there is a new study that says something will kill you, then those who have been doing/eating/practicing whatever that “bad” thing is suddenly get a headache and think they are about to die.
Then of course we have SWINE FLU DEATHS ON THE RISE!!!!! when two people in Nepal die from it.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Hey, what’s funny is that I’m so not the “suing” type OR even the type to run to the doctor over a sniffle.
But then, I don’t think they are Gods, either. My own experience?
They are a bunch of arrogant men earning entirely too much money, usually, who may or may not be gifted.
But one thing you can count on? They think they are gifted.
They are caging the system just like any other mortal soul would do given the power they have been awarded.
And why not? People really want to live forever. I’ve seen cases where people file lawsuits over their 89-year-old dying.
For heaven’s sakes…….it’s insane.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Bill Clinton introduced a diabetes program that transformed the approach. I am not close to the details, but I definitely agree. Same with geriatrics.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Transformed what approach? Do you have any clue whatsoever what you are spewing? Diabetic care has changed dramatically since 2000, even since 2005. So what exactly did he change? That means from XXXX to YYYY. Give me both XXXX and YYYY.
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I would argue that what is straining the system is people using the system that aren’t paying into the system either through premiums, payroll taxes or property taxes.
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM
They aren’t selling anything, they’re buting votes just like FDR did with WPA.
thomasaur on July 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Exactly these leftists must be insane to think that we all have to pay more to get less and there are not going to be huge consequences.
elduende on July 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Oh heck yes, don’t even get me started on how “we the sheeple” keep reacting to all the Disease-Du-Jour nonsense. That the talking heads on the news stations can whip us into such a germophobic frenzy is a pretty sad commentary on our national IQ level. Those overdressed scaremongers really stretch the limits of the 1st amendment, and way too **** often for my taste.
Dark-Star on July 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Snowe and other moderates are bristling at the time table set by President Obama – he wants bills passed through the House and Senate before the bodies leave for their August recess on August 7.
Of course they are. That’s not nearly enough time to write their
bribespayoffsamendments to the legislation.I R A Darth Aggie on July 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
What sort of business did you have?
I’ve told my boys that we will wait and see what happens, though I will do my best to keep things solvent. If I had to I would go to a pure cash basis and keep my business off the books as much as possible. It might just come to that anyway as people are forced to trade or barter rather than pay with cash money.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
It was a particular interest of his. He introduced a self-care program that was adopted by many. It is still being adopted, in fact.
It greatly reduces hosptializations over crisis situation, which is how we used to approach diabetes.
It’s basic stuff…..but it’s solid.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
They are a bunch of arrogant men earning entirely too much money, usually, who may or may not be gifted.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Do have any clue what you’re talking about? Do you think they just get some box tops together and send it in for their sheepskin? Med School is free? Residency? Malpractice (> $100k / yr premiums), staff, ……. Oh, and continuing education we can’t forget that.
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Oh come on, CAn of sardines would tell you that they DESERVE to do that! They are the Statist Elite, we can’t have them suffering from stress, can we?
Besides, if the taxpayers – the actual people who produced that wealth that was squandered- had that money they might do the wrong things with it – like buying food and other trivial expenses.
Don’t you see that it’s much better that money was wasted by the government.
Do I really need to add a /sarc tag here?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM
As much as you need to be ignored, this blathering you do borders on dangerous – if anyone was inclined to listen to you.
Stop dispensing medical advise on the internet. You have no idea what you are typing about. The smoking cessation pills carry a risk of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms, including hostility, depression and even suicidal thoughts- it’s not candy you idiot. People who are considering taking this medication need to be evaluated by their doctor.
The flu kills tens of thousand of people here in the US every year – they need their doctors and the support staff.
You don’t know anything about medicine and you don’t know anything about the medical industry – every thread exposes your obsessive need to insert yourself into this area – It’s like having a Munchhausen’s patient here at HA. Which in and of itself wouldn’t be such a problem if you didn’t dispense medical advise – you could harm someone reading your advise – think about it.
batterup on July 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Perhaps a way to cure that sort of attitude (no pun intended) would be to have people hold medical disaster insurance policies but pay cash for check-ups.
It’s amazing that people still drag their kids into the clinic because the kid has a cold or puked a few times the night before, as if the doctor is going to do anything more than check their throat and tell them to go home and rest.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Not to interrupt, but Blue Dog Dems, 52 of them say NO to the QAHCAA. Won’t support the bill. Finally some common sense
elclynn on July 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Just like they always do, and with money forcibly taken from the producers and achievers.
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
In March, 1939, after Chamberlain had given the Sudetenland to Hitler for “peace in our time” the Czech leader, Hacha, entered “negotiations” with the Nazis. After a 4-hour harangue by Hitler, and Goering’s comment that he’d hate to have to bomb Prague, Hacha fainted (some say he had a mild heart attack). After he awoke, he signed over what remaind of the Czech nation to Hitler.
The moral of this story? Not all agreements are made between equal partners. You think Obama and the AMA sat down to talk about this and engaged in give and take? More like give- or else. Ask Arizona about how this works.
hawksruleva on July 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I do agree. I’m not fond of that profession. :)
I think they took advantage of God status.
It’s time for them to climb off the pedestals.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
batterup
My bout of “flu” ended up as 30 days in intensive care with chest tubes.
elclynn on July 16, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I wish somebody could explain what it is that makes Olympia Snowe “moderate.”
Jim Treacher on July 16, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Not mine. My family. S Corp. Clothing exporters. They restructured completely, eliminated warehouse and employees this winter and focused on opening new warehouse and hiring new employees outside the US. Trying to muddle the books as much as possible but if things get really bad there’s talk of leaving the US permanently. My family has been in this country for 65 years fled Communists now unbelievably we may be doing the same.
elduende on July 16, 2009 at 5:01 PM
It was a particular interest of his. He introduced a self-care program that was adopted by many. It is still being adopted, in fact.
It greatly reduces hosptializations over crisis situation, which is how we used to approach diabetes.
It’s basic stuff…..but it’s solid.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
What he did was mandate coverage of glucose testing equipment for Medicaid and Medicare. I was diagnosed in 1992 and my insurance company covered it back then. SO IT TOOK AT LEAST 7 YEARS FOR THE GOVERNMENT PLAN TO CATCH UP WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE. My God, you have no clue whatsoever.
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Well, you just trust your doctor. In the meantime, the lawsuits are mounting against them.
Just ONE little bitty story. My friend wrenched her back. She went to her back specialist. He recommended surgery. The next doctor recommended yet another surgery because the first one was “botched.” The third did the same.
In the meantime, they all recommended highly addictive pain medication. Unbeknownst to them, my friend is married to a recovering drug addict. She questioned this advice.
One honest doctor said, “I don’t deal with addiction.”
In short, become addicted. That’s not my speciality.
So if you admire this holistic approach, you go right ahead.
But there are serious questions about the current delivery system.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Okay, first this:
Then this:
WOW. I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for a while, but…. if you think IT CAN’T GET WORSE than it is now, and if you think someone shouldn’t have the right to seek damages because a medical mistake killed their elderly mother…. Yeah, that’s twisted.
I agree that tort reform involving some limit on damages ought to be enacted, particularly in the area of “psychological trauma,” where I notice the numbers tend to get into the millions far beyond the cost of the procedure, but you can’t be so cold as to suggest that people should not have the right to seek just compensation SIMPLY because a patient was of an advanced age.
And yes, it can get way worse, and it will if this bill passes.
Animator Girl on July 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Well, that completely sucks.
But at least it’s part of protocol now.
We need to speed that up.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Yeah, you’re right. We won’t ever agree. Unless your 89-year-old mother is truly subjected to insane practices, then I think suing at that age is usually about the living person unwilling to accept that life ends.
In short, this is about personal judgment, and even my dying mother laughed about the abuses of the medical system. She thought it was nuts. Order a hip replacement for someone who is 90? That’s fantasy thinking.
Or the woman who smoked for 75 years suing because her oxygen tank doesn’t help?
These are real and daily issues with people in the healthcare industry.
We probably all need to step back and realize, we’re not going to live forever.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Sorry, I extrapolated your family to mean you. Still, that’s too bad for them, especially as they came here originally to gain a better life and now feel as if they must move again.
My own business is adaptable to the changing factors on the ground, as it has been from the start. I used to make the rounds of outlying farms and offer to repair vehicles or weld broken equipment in exchange for cash, gear, tools, sometimes even food (a 1/4 or 1/2 cow was always a winner).
I’ll adapt here too if things go to he!l but I would probably have to layoff a few of my boys and I don’t want to do that.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Just for the record, at what age will you feel that it’s ok for doctors to provide you with a negligent level of care? Clearly, once you’re 89, you’ll be willing to accept whatever heinous lapses of judgement they commit.
hawksruleva on July 16, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Well, that completely sucks.
But at least it’s part of protocol now.
We need to speed that up.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Yes it does suck. Explain how we will “speed that up” by eliminating private insurance which precceded Governmental coverage by about a decade. BTW, who exactly are “we”?
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM
I don’t expect to live forever: I do expect to get the care that I am willing and able to pay for. That’s the nature of liberty.
Animator Girl on July 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I think you are way off base. Your experiences have seriously biased you in generalizing about all doctors.
The personal cost of being a doctor is tremendous, I have witnessed it firsthand. You must have a certain arrogance in order to make the decisions you have to.
What you and others like you miss are the wretches who come into ERs and offices day after day who ignore simple advice, who abuse their bodies, who willfully decided they know better, – and then expect to get a pill to be fixed.
My sister just died after a painful 18 month fight with cancer. Did I like her doctor? No, he was not my favorite guy. But, she did not follow all of his recommendations and guidelines he gave for treatment. She did not take her pain pills correctly, or let us help her. He was not responsible for her cancer progression because she was too passive in her whole view of cancer, preferring to ignore the twelve thousand pound gorilla in the room.
I feel pity for doctors who, like that guy, see patients that they can make a difference for, only to have their best efforts knocked back into their teeth, as it were. It has to have an effect over time, and it does. Doctors have to be detached to a certain degree.
Furthermore, if a guy can put me to sleep and wake me up, he can charge whatever the hell he wants.
catlady on July 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Just saw your followup, AnninCA. So when you’re 80, or 90, you’ll happily suffer whatever imperfections that exist without fixing them? Even if that means 6 years with a broken hip?
And if your opinion is that medical care should cease at age X, then why all this worry about universal health care? Why not just drop coverage for people who are worth less? I mean, infants, the poor, the elderly, they’re all a drag on society, and have a low quality of life already. Why bother giving them healthcare?
That’s your position, isn’t it?
hawksruleva on July 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Never. But I do think doctors avoid geriatric issues.
They don’t like not being able to be God.
It didn’t used to be this way.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Can’t wait for the government clerks under the direction of lifer demorats to tabulate exactly where acceptable care ends and “fantasy thinking” starts.
Won’t that be a joy, probably to be discovered by all of us at moments we least expect it.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Order a hip replacement for someone who is 90? That’s fantasy thinking.
and 25 years ago a hip replacement for anyone on Earth was fantasy thinking.
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
She’s slightly to the right of Trotsky. Thus, moderate. The other definition of moderate would be: “one who capitulates”.
hawksruleva on July 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM
The society envisioned in Soylent Green creeps ever closer to reality.
Perfect health otherwise, but an accident puts a 90 year old in a wheelchair because a hip replacement is “fantasy thinking.”
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Excellent point, but doubt Ann “ice floes for the elderly” inCa will agree.
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Order a hip replacement for someone who is 90? That’s fantasy thinking.
You are being illogical in your examples here. You complain about doctors being arrogant and playing God, yet you exhibit the same thinking by arbitrarily saying that a person of a certain age should not get a certain procedure.
That to me is what makes your case lose it’s validity. Apply your logic consistently.
catlady on July 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM
AnninCA, did you read this article yesterday? Do you agree? Because I can’t detect a difference between your comments about a hip replacement for a 90-year-old and Singer’s valuation of health care for the elderly.
Animator Girl on July 16, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I’m American so I’m torn on what to do. Wow, You have a great biz Bishop. Stay as cash based as possible and start on the bartering. I may adapt to something like that. (but I’ll have to figure out how to finnagle it I’m in a hated profession). No guesses please. :-)
elduende on July 16, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Obama does NOT care about elderly people: His grandmother passed away 2 days before the election, November 2, and he did not go to the funeral/memorial until sometime in December…
TN Mom on July 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM
come on give him a break he was so busy and all she did was raise him….
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Bishop
Got distracted by CAtroll, but to your point, which I thought was good. People do tend to take their children in for minor illnesses that really could be treated at home. This goes with my line of thought here that the patient needs to take responsibility for their treatment, and also for their health. Parents want to have Johnny fixed with a pill and returned to them….
catlady on July 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
We are a society. We come to decisions together. If you are still thinking that your hip replacement, provided by your own insurance, is a solution…and you do not see that as fantasy thinking…then perhaps we have not yet met the place where we gell, societally speaking.
I have been an advocate for my entire adult life of healthcare reform. I am traditionally liberal on this issue.
However, if we are not yet willing, then we are not yet willing.
That’s what I’ve learned from a lifetime of support for this.
It may not happen in my lifetime. I am not disappointed by our system if that’s the case.
I disagree with all of you strongly, but I toally support our system of arriving at the decisions, decade by decade.
You hold onto your notions that your insurance protects you. I think you are naive, but then I’ve been privy to what goes on in the backrooms.
Trust me. They are figuring out ways to make sure they don’t pay for your care.
But…if you have not yet become convinced?
Nothing I warn you about will make a difference.
We’ll just have to let you find out.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I think AnninCA and johnkee are either married, or the same person.
If it is the former, let’s all hope they never, EVER procreate.
Dave R. on July 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Lessee here….lawyer, politician, aide to Al Franken?
I’m of the opinion that just about any profession that provides a readily necessary service could adapt to a barter/trade/cash-only system but you might need to relocate to an area where your skill is extra handy.
I gained ever more opportunity as vehicles went beyond having a carburetor-breathing block, radiator and alternator to the advanced engines which are normal today; people just can’t fix them on their own any longer.
Then again, maybe there will be enough pushback as we stand here on the precipice and disaster will be averted.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM
.
While that may be true, IMO, the real problem lies in those WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE who take their children or themselves to the Emergency Room at their local hospital for unneccessary reasons.
.
I think if we were able to fund a free health care program for the uninsured poor, that works like private insurance- in that it penalizes the insured for going to the E.R. when unneccessary (without a doctor’s consent in the absence of life threatening conditions) Rather than a penalty (like in private policies when insurance refuses to pay), hospitals would be able to determine if that patient has “gov’t/free-to-them” insurance and REDIRECT THEM TO THEIR PRIMARY/FAMILY DOCTOR OR CLINIC- REFUSE TO TREAT THEM IN THE E.R. Considering the cost to the gov’t of E.R. treatment vs. doctor office/clinic treatment- the program would pay for itself, no?
NightmareOnKStreet on July 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM
That to me is what makes your case lose it’s validity. Apply your logic consistently.
catlady on July 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM
They can’t. They’re lemmings. Well, one good thing – implicit term limits on Congress under Obamacare. Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer won’t be treated and whatever is wrong with Byrd won’t be treated. Oh, wait – they’re exempt. Never mind. (in my best Emily Litella voice)
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM
People would be a lot more careful of when they went to the doctor if they had to actually pay the bill, instead of a $20 copay. I heard a few years ago that the single payer proponents knew that when they got the concept of the small copay in effect, they knew it was only a matter of time before single payer was inevitable.
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM
On a lighter note, trust me……I’m not procreating anything at my age.
*haha
Otherwise, I never would have voted McCain/Palin. :)
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I don’t think single-payer is within the lifetime of anyone posting here.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:31 PM
As will you when you discover that a juggernaut government health system that is literally answerable to no one and allows you no other viable recourse decides to wheel you toward the death room because you are too expensive to keep alive.
At least in a private system the market forces are at play, people have some choices about their coverage and their health, not so with Big Fed Care.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM
If this monstrosity goes through, when does it go in effect?
Blake on July 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM
LOL! Not politician or connected to Franken but you got it in one!
Lets hope you are right and people come to their senses. I don’t want to leave my country but if all the things that made this nation great are gone then I don’t know…and I say that as someone who proudly served in uniform too.
elduende on July 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I did a quick search for BlueCross BlueShield financial statements and found HCSC (they say they are the country’s fourth largest health insurance company):
Health Care Service Corporation, ( http://www.hcsc.com/about-hcsc/finance.htm# ) a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
HCSC does business as (dba) BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois, BlueCross BlueShield of New Mexico, BlueCross BlueShield of Oklahoma, and BlueCross BlueShield of Texas.
The financial statements ( http://www.hcsc.com/pdf/2008_financial_statements.pdf ) are for the years ending December 31, 2008, and 2007.
The net income percentage was 4.6% for 2008 and 6.0% for 2007.
The net investment income (as a percentage of net income) was 9% for 2008 and 37% for 2007.
Discounting 2008 (obviously a bad year for investments), 2007 investment income accounted for almost 4 out of every 10 dollars HCSC earned.
HCSC’ position on Health Care Reform – http://www.hcsc.com/pdf/healthcare_crossroads.pdf
Xiphos on July 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM
We are a society. We come to decisions together. If you are still thinking that your hip replacement, provided by your own insurance, is a solution…and you do not see that as fantasy thinking…then perhaps we have not yet met the place where we gell, societally speaking.
My 80 yo father had an outpatient procedure performed recently. They essentially caulked the fractures in his spine. Before the procedure the morphine allowed him some relief at the expense of soiling his bed. He lives with us as does my mother who needs a hip replacement. After the procedure there was about a month of physical therapy. Afterwards he was able to drive my mother to her doctors and plant a garden with my daughter. They just got their first tomato. So, AnninCA: care to comment? Or are you and you’re ilk smarter than us fantasy thinking GEICO cavemen?
Jed_Eckert on July 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I simply cannot understand you. This is statist thinking: the idea that we make decisions as a collective, and that if I intend to make individual decisions that affect me alone, I am not so advanced or evolved in my thinking, and I prevent the advancement of society. Hate you tell you, this is not a new idea. Every oppressive government in history has regarded individual choice as a stumbling-block to achieving utopia, and yet no quality of life in any feudalist society has ever reached that of a republic comprised of individuals.
I don’t cling to my insurance: ideally, I’d prefer to be able to purchase health insurance that covers disasters only, a policy I can tailor to my own needs regardless of where I work. I’m happy to pay for care that I need without the help of insurance when I can afford it, and I have done so before. I want whatever system affords me the most freedom to make decisions for my own health, and if that makes me an uncooperative member of society, so be it.
Animator Girl on July 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I personally think that the acceptance of turning away people is part of the issue.
ER rooms run off of government subsidies, and they are a profit center if they refuse all but truly life-threatening diseases.
In LA, the ones who close are the ones who treat those other than government-subsidized fatalities.
I’m not sure where people can go until it’s lifethreatening these days.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I don’t doubt that you believe that. BTW just out of curiosity if you were stranded on a desert island who would you rather have stranded with you, a government bureaucrat or a doctor?
txmomof6 on July 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Good Gracious Anne, how many Lines from “Sicko” are you going to plagiariet????? Do you send Michael Moore any royalty checks?
Ah the “good old days” of medicine:
When Alexander Flemings Pennicillin was laughed at
When leeches and bloodletting and “humours” were remedies for health
When tobacco and lung cancer were totally unrelated
When we spent millions of government funding on Polio iron lungs, but nothing for Salks vaccine research
I’ll give you a Hundred dollars if you can give me a thought on health insurance that wasn’t JoeBidened (aka ripped off) from Sicko!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on July 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Soooo, people should just give up when they get old? Again, what’s the point of paying for insurance if you’re not going to use it?
In your vision of “better healthcare” people who drink won’t get care. People who smoke. People who eat too much, or too many sweets, or too much meat. People won’t get allergy treatment, beacuse it’s non essential. Plastic surgery? That’s just denying the aging process. If you fall, stay broken.
I can’t think of a SINGLE medical treatment that couldn’t be justified out of existence. But I return to this question – will you deny YOURSELF all medical care? Or is this plan for anyone who’s not AnninCA?
There is a way to reduce healthcare costs. Living with pain, disease, or deformity is not the way to do it. In my world, every day of life is worth living.
hawksruleva on July 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »