In watching the Presidents speech last night I heard some very good points. The covering of pre-existing conditions. Not allowing insurers to drop you if you get sick, etc. I was also left with some of the same questions I had before he began. As we have many bright liberal minds on this site who are advocates of the health care bill the President wants passed, I will pose my unanswered questions again in the hope of maybe finally getting some answers.
1. The President, as many on this site as well, failed to address the rationing concerns held by the public. The question he did not answer was: How will this system keep from rationing care when 47 million (he dropped it to 30 million last night) new people are injected into the system without a proportionate amount of caregivers being injected as well? There are many estimates from the AMA and others that place our current health care provider shortage at 20,000 and rising. How will we not have the waiting lines and rationing of care that exist in other similar systems when we already have a shortage of caregivers?
Simple question, can't get an answer.
2. In your proposal to fine businesses 8% of their payroll if they do not provide health care options to their employees, how do you explain that the rolls for the public plan will not grow, hence growing the cost, if the businesses health care expense is above 8% of their payroll? Simply, if it costs them less to pay the 8% fine, and they drop their employee plans, how will the cost not rise with all of the unforseen workers that were once covered, entering the public system?
Simple question, no answer.
3. How specifically does mandating everyone carry some form of coverage actually drive down costs? If it is mandatory is it actually competition? Did auto rates fall when some states made it mandatory for all drivers to carry auto insurance?
Simple question, no specific answer.
These are just some of the questions I was left with after the Presidents speech. He did address some concerns although again not with specifics, but he did address them. The opening statement was very good and in true Obama style he delivered it well. The same can be said about his summation. Very motivational and inspirational words. He always delivers those well and for that I give him kudos.
So he had the beginning. He had the end. But the middle still left many questions. The same questions that made August a very trying month for the Democrats. He had the 2 pieces of bread, but the body of the sandwich didn't have much meat. Just a little peanut butter that was left stuck to the roof of my mouth.
The President may get a small bump amongst those that already support him and his plan. However, he failed to answer the questions that were posed by those who are unsure about his plan. Without specifics, I am unsure if the blue dog democrats that are holding the bill back will feel good enough to change their minds as the President didn't say much to change the minds or answer the questions of their constituents.
|
|
| |
|
|
So why not allow more non government choice? Right now u can not cross state lines to purchase healthcare. Further more in the long run with cost spiraling the government wont be able to offer incentives.
Thanks Arch. Will someone call Ripley?
1. Simple. The health care industry is already recruiting heavily in my area. Signing bonuses for nurses is in my local paper every day. We simply provide incentives for getting an education in health care. With the baby boomers aging, that is the industry to go into.....2. Interesting question. Personally, I think current health care costs need to come down for small businesses anyways, but I can see your point.....3. If there is a choice, thus competition for consumers, then I don't know how the price does not come down. I prefer single-payer, to be honest; so the whole public option thing is a compromise as far as I am concerned....Arch.
We can only go on "hoping" Smashey.
Guess not huh? Oh well. Like I expected you to have any substance behind your beliefs.
Now, care to answer the questions in the blog?
They added an ammendment because it wasn't there. Jesus, what kind of logical excuse is that? Lets add it again!!!!!! makes no sense. It wasn't there, it is now. Immigration laws dont stop shit. Illegals can get ssn's and drivers licenses. Immigration is another jacked up subject that needs addressed though.
They rushed to add it because they're pussies, like I said. Obama glared at Wilson then he stopped, calmed down and said "that's not true." Obama should've said what he was thinking and what the rest of us wanted him to say: "Shut the fuck up, asshole. We already have immigration laws that would prevent illegals from signing onto the public option. Any further questions, dickface?" That would've been amazing. But no, the democrats ran off to add a pointless amendment to the bill so the fuckin mouth breathers would be happy.
So why did they add it if it were already there as the President said? I call bullshit. Joe called him out and as far as i'm concerned was proven correct as they rushed to add it the day after.
We don't need an ammendment to stop illegals from getting on the plan. All we have to do is enforce existing immigration laws. This is a bullshit point against the bill. It carries no weight once it's reasoned out. Joe Wilson is a perfect symbol of the Republican Party: Loud, annoying, and incapable of critical thinking.
What, like adding an ammendment to ensure illegals weren't allowed in the plan even though they said they couldn't to begin with? Guess Joe Wilson may have been right huh? Why add it id it was there to begin with? You're hilarious. They can vote in anything they want. They cant convince their own party to do so. the blame game is debunked.
I think it would be easier for the dems to get the votes if the President didn't have to make a special address just to weed out the made up bullshit that the Republicans have been making up.
They cant stop it you dumb ass. The dems camt get their own votes.
Even if we fixed the shortage and fixed the tort problem, Republicans would still be against real reform. They have proven it repeatedly. I say push this bill through, and in 10 years after it's eben running for a while, we can all look back and say "wow, the democrats actually accomplished something for once"
I see the point with the foreigners FnG and agree totally. My issue point is lets fix the issues we have before adding to them. I don't have the answers either as to how to get the system solvent in order to serve everyone but my main point is EITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT! Yet they want to pass this through and wanted to do it without reading it. Fix the shortage issue, fix the tort system and then you can make a viable health care system that will work and benefit all. It's like putting new wheels on bald tires. looks good but the problem is still there.
Each year, thousands and thousands of medical professionals are no accepted to contiue their educations even though they want to because their is not enough room in classrooms and not enouhg money to train them all. The health care bill would allow more money for trainging medical professionsals. If you're worried about the shortage of health care workers, support the health care bill and we will have thousands more every year.
P.S. - why the fuck ARE we allowing hundreds of thousands of foreignors over here to use our health care resources if we have that bad of a shortage?
Smashey, let's assume that you are correct, that there is a developing shortage of health care resources. Your question was how are we going to prevent from rationing if we add another 30,000,000 people to the system. Do you assume that these 30,000,000 people don't need health care? I mean your question is loaded as hell. What could we do about it? Hey, maybe allow nurse practitioners to do more, put Americans ahead of foreignors, more preventative medicine, I don't know I am not an expert on how to develop healthcare resources. Right now the health industry has no real control. Maybe that is the reason the government needs to come in and get a handle on it. But if you think that it's either rationing, or leaving 30,000,000 people out in the cold, then I vote rationing.
Now that I have shown why I believe the shortage of caregivers and the rationing of care to be inevitable FnG, lets see the plan for fixing it? You haven't addressed it in any of your responses and either have the advocates in congress. I am all for fixing it but I have yet to see a plan to do so. Instead we push to increase the problem 100 fold without addressing the issue that exists now. Doesn't seem the smartest thing to do to me. The government must believe there is an issue or I wouldn't be able to pull stats from their websites that say as much. Why is it they aren't addressing it or even mentioning it for that matter. This is why those that oppose the plan oppose it. Not because we don't want care for all. We do. I agree that we should have a plan that can do that. We just want to ensure it doesn't cause a bigger problem down the road that it has been proven to in the other countries in which such plans exist. We need to address these issues before pushing through a plan that will make the issue even worse.
Here is a report from the Government Accountability Office addressing the shortage of caregivers: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011042t.pdf
The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) is concerned about the shortage of Registered Nurses (RNs) and is working with schools, policy makers, kindred organizations, and the media to bring attention to this health care crisis. AACN is working to enact legislation, identify strategies, and form collaborations to address the nursing shortage. To keep stakeholders abreast of current statistics related to the shortage, this fact sheet has been developed along with a companion Web resource.
Current and Projected Shortage Indicators
* In the July/August 2009 Health Affairs, Dr. Peter Buerhaus and coauthors found that despite the current easing of the nursing shortage due to the recession, the U.S. nursing shortage is projected to grow to 260,000 registered nurses by 2025. A shortage of this magnitude would be twice as large as any nursing shortage experienced in this country since the mid-1960s. In the article titled The Recent Surge In Nurse Employment: Causes And Implications, the researchers point to a rapidly aging workforce as a primary contributor to the projected shortage.
* On March 6, 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the healthcare sector of the American economy is continuing to grow, despite steep job losses in nearly all major industries. Hospitals, long-term care facilities, and other ambulatory care settings added 27,000 new jobs in February 2009, a month when 681,000 jobs were eliminated nationwide. As the largest segment of the healthcare workforce, nurses will likely be recruited fill a large portion of these new positions.
* In the November 26, 2008 Journal of the American Medical Association, workforce analyst
Dr. Peter Buerhaus stated: “Over the next 20 years, the average age of the RN will increase and the size of the workforce will plateau as large numbers of RNs retire. Because demand for RNs is expected to increase during this time, a large and prolonged shortage of nurses is expected to hit the US in the latter half of the next decade.”
* According to a report released by the American Health Care Association in July 2008, more than 19,400 RN vacancies exist in long-term care settings. These vacancies, coupled with an additional 116,000 open positions in hospitals reported by the American Hospital Association in July 2007, bring the total RN vacancies in the U.S. to more than 135,000. This translates into a national RN vacancy rate of 8.1%.
*
In a statement released in March 2008, The Council on Physician and Nurse Supply, an independent group of health care leaders based at the University of Pennsylvania, has determined that 30,000 additional nurses should be graduated annually to meet the nation's healthcare needs, an expansion of 30% over the current number of annual nurse
graduates.----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
I guess you could argue that it isn't inevitable now? I can do this all day.
As of March 31, 2009, there are:
*
6,080 Primary Care HPSAs with 65 million people living in them. It would take 16,585 practitioners to meet their need for primary care providers (a population to practitioner ratio of 2,000:1.
*
4,091 Dental HPSAs with 49 million people living in them. It would take 9,579 practitioners to meet their need for dental providers (a population to practitioner ratio of 3,000:1).
*
3,132 Mental Health HPSAs with 80 million people living in them. It would take 5,352 practitioners to meet their need for mental health providers (a population to practitioner ratio of
10,000:1).----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
That came from the US Dept. of HHS website FnG. Anymore doubt as to the FACT that we have a shortage now?
That is great FnG and I agree that it has to be dealt with. Problem is neither you nor the government has a plan to deal with it. It IS inevitable. I have posted the AMA's own statistics that show we have a shortage of caregivers right now. You can choose to ignore that fact but it is a FACT. It has nothing to do with selfishness, it has to do with what damn good is it to force a rationed system upon the public which will cost billions? If you still can't get care what good is being covered anyway? Jesus, you flippin advocates of this system cant see the trees for the fucking forrest. Dont give me your bullshit about 'yuppies' and being selfish. Answer the questions about how it is going to work. My scenario is not apocalyptic, it is backed up with statistical fact. Something your answers so far have lacked.
Smashey - in your apocalyptic scenario - where people might actually have to wait in line for some things, what would you do? We could kill the extra 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 or whatever it is. We could just say, fuck you there's not enough doctors and we don't want to have to wait in line. I mean, if all the people in this country were insured - even if by private companies - wouldn't that create the same "rationing" scenario that you claim is inevitable? The whole question of "rationing" health care is a twisted and mindless attempt to garner support and rally the "me" generation - the most mindless, greedy, and selfish generation to ever walk the face of this earth. We know that yuppies insist that they get the very best of everything, don't ever want to wait in line, and fuck everybody else.
Let's say the supposed shortage was food. In that case what should we do? Let 30,000,000 people starve so rich people can have steak every night? What the fcuk. It really disturbs me that the whole "rationing" thing even comes into the health care debate.
If there is indeed a shortage of certain health care resources, it will take a coordinated effort to deal with it in one way or another, and who is going to handle that? Halliburton? NO. The federal government, whose duty it is to do it. We have to deal with these things as a nation - together and by consensus.
As I said, it's pretty pitiful when the only responses come from fake profiles.
YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!
I will answer the questions you have posed here because the status quo is no longer an option. Number one, as I said in my address to congress, only 5% of the public will actually sign up for a public option. Forget the fact that I and my fellow supporters keep throwing around the 40 million number. 5% will sign up even though I am going to FORCE everyone to have coverage....er I mean allow them to be covered. Just 5%. Number two, Businesses will get fined if they fail to provide some plan to their workers, that is true. If they choose to pay the fine then their employees will be fined as well if they don't get their own plan...er I mean motivated for their own good. If they decide to take part in the public plan then they will be the 5% that will choose to sign up because they are being forced to....er I mean motivated. Following me here? Number three, competition is a good thing. If you are looking for a plan and aren't one of the 5% that will choose the public plan, then you will have to have a private plan or be fined....er I mean motivated for your own good. The insurance companies will be getting tens of millions of new policy holders and will be fighting for their business. They will have plenty of motivation to raise...er I mean lower prices with millions of new customers FORCED to take their plans. As long as their yearly premiums are below the amount of the individual fines, they will make out like bandits...er I mean spur competition. So there you have it. I hope you are satisfied with my plan and the answers I have given you. Remember the status quo is no longer an option. I would rather pass bad...er I mean something, than to do nothing. Thank you America.
This is pitiful. I have posted these questions for over a month. MDuminiak has posted as well and we still get absolutely ZERO answers from the advocates. The President doesn't answer and the congress doesn't answer. FnG answered by saying we would have to have 'priorities' which is the closest anyone has come. And they wonder why the public is outraged.
I have been bitching about 1 and 3 for a while. I can add 2 to the bitch list. :)
*bump* in the hopes of maybe getting some answers.
Funny how Obama attacked McCain in the election and now embraces his ideas what a twisted joke.
Plus how are insurance companies going to offer full benifits but at lower costs? And how would a part time guy like me afford private care? So I would be forced to get the public option if its mandatory.
In his case to the joint session of Congress last night, Obama cited the Congressional Budget Office to contend that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up for a so-called public option. So if he is mandating that ALL Americans be covered, even if they don't want to, then how would that equate to only 5% of Americans on the public option? The other 95% are going to choose their own plan? Doesn't sound like he has much confidence in his own plan if he's even admitting 95% would choose something else. His numbers make no sense.
|
|
<< Home