Arizona Shooting Spree, Congresswoman, judge, among victims...

LOL no I don't. You brought up the near term shortage of physicians. And I brought up mitgating factors which you ignored.

Additionally there will be more healthcare providers some doing functions now reserved for physicians. And there will be more physicans also, on the long term, as we graduate more medical students. Last year the nation for the first time in decades added more seats to existing medical schools in the US.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I was thinking longer term:

https://www.aamc.org/download/70308/data/physicianshortagefs.pdf

You didn't address the shortage with anything but wishful thinking.

As your own link suggested:

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I feel the same way. Along with the good provision in there, it was a giveaway to the insurance business. We need a public option or the same universal health care system that delivers health care to Taiwan for half the cost.

This isn't what the Republican are stumping for, they want to kill all new deal reforms and reduce government, ""to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.", in the words of Grover Norquist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it's not.

TITLE I—ENSURING COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS AND MULTIPLE HEALTH CARE NEEDS
Sec. 101. Establish universal access programs to improve high risk pools and
reinsurance markets.
Sec. 102. Elimination of certain requirements for guaranteed availability in individual
market.
Sec. 103. No annual or lifetime spending caps.
Sec. 104. Preventing unjust cancellation of insurance coverage.
TITLE II—REDUCING HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS AND THE
NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS
Sec. 111. State innovation programs.
Sec. 112. Health plan finders.
Sec. 113. Administrative simplification.
DIVISION B—IMPROVING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
TITLE I—EXPANDING ACCESS AND LOWERING COSTS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES
Sec. 201. Rules governing association health plans.
Sec. 202. Clarification of treatment of single employer arrangements.
Sec. 203. Enforcement provisions relating to association health plans.
Sec. 204. Cooperation between Federal and State authorities.
Sec. 205. Effective date and transitional and other rules.
TITLE II—TARGETED EFFORTS TO EXPAND ACCESS
Sec. 211. Extending coverage of dependents.
Sec. 212. Allowing auto-enrollment for employer sponsored coverage.
TITLE III—EXPANDING CHOICES BY ALLOWING AMERICANS TO
BUY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE ACROSS STATE LINES
Sec. 221. Interstate purchasing of Health Insurance.
TITLE IV—IMPROVING HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
Sec. 231. Saver’s credit for contributions to health savings accounts.
Sec. 232. HSA funds for premiums for high deductible health plans.
Sec. 233. Requiring greater coordination between HDHP administrators and
HSA account administrators so that enrollees can enroll in
both at the same time.
Sec. 234. Special rule for certain medical expenses incurred before establishment
of account.
DIVISION C—ENACTING REAL MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM
Sec. 301. Encouraging speedy resolution of claims.
Sec. 302. Compensating patient injury.
Sec. 303. Maximizing patient recovery.
Sec. 304. Additional health benefits.
Sec. 305. Punitive damages.
Sec. 306. Authorization of payment of future damages to claimants in health
care lawsuits.
Sec. 307. Definitions.
Sec. 308. Effect on other laws.
Sec. 309. State flexibility and protection of states’ rights.
Sec. 310. Applicability; effective date.
DIVISION D—PROTECTING THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
Sec. 401. Rule of construction.
Sec. 402. Repeal of Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness
Research.
DIVISION E—INCENTIVIZING WELLNESS AND QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS
Sec. 501. Incentives for prevention and wellness programs.
DIVISION F—PROTECTING TAXPAYERS
Sec. 601. Provide full funding to HHS OIG and HCFAC.
Sec. 602. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions and conscience protections.
Sec. 603. Improved enforcement of the Medicare and Medicaid secondary payer
provisions.
Sec. 604. Strengthen Medicare provider enrollment standards and safeguards.
Sec. 605. Tracking banned providers across State lines.
DIVISION G—PATHWAY FOR BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS
Sec. 701. Licensure pathway for biosimilar biological products.
Sec. 702. Fees relating to biosimilar biological products.
Sec. 703. Amendments to certain patent provisions.

http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf

Arthur

 

Oh yes I did. And I even gave you references to back up my position. What you have repeatedly failed to do is to address those rebuttals. All you can do and all you have done is just repeat the party line.

You have a habit of just ignoring inconvienent facts my friend. And there are many that you have and continue to ignore.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you go back to your polling data that has been throughly debunked. The unpleasant fact for you and your Republican/Tea Party buds is that as more and more Americans learn the truth about healthcare reform, the more they like it. And the more they realized they were lied to by Republicans/Tea Partiers and the industry.

 

The only thing you have to know about the Republican plan is this:

TITLE III—EXPANDING CHOICES BY ALLOWING AMERICANS TO
BUY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE ACROSS STATE LINES

That means they want the insurance companies to be able to move to the state with the least regulations so they can continue to screw the American people. This is clear evidence of the utter corruption of the Republican agenda. The effect of this would be the exact opposite of what they say, in that it will reduce choice.

They never hardly ever tell you who they are really working for.

"This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." George W Bush, Al Smith Memorial Dinner in New York, 19th October 2000​

 

BS, The FIRST line from your source that you gave on shortages:

Which says 180 degrees different than what you claim.

Arthur

 

Every consumer knons that is total BS.

The individual health insurance market is dominated in many states by just a handful of companies, so this provision would allow consumers to shop broadly for cheaper policies, supporters say. "You want to have greater competition in the insurance market and this does that," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and top health advisor to McCain during his presidential campaign.

Talk about spreading lies, since WHEN is competition a bad thing for consumers?

The Democrat complaint is simply based on the belief that consumers are too STUPID to make decent choices.

Arthur

 

It's a lie, it would be false competition. The insurance companies want to be able sell very cheap policies that are illegal in most states, since they provide coverage that is so inadequate they are practically worthless (with something like, for instance, $300 a day max on hospital bills).

This is more than just a different position on health care, it's downright sociopathic. And it's hypocritical, since it would sidestep the power of states to regulate state commerce.

 

You are avoiding the subject Arthur, in addition to lying.

 

It will manifestly outlast the present Congress. Which gives lie to your earlier (unsubstantiated, and frankly silly) assertion that the election of such was a referendum on health care reform.

Another silly canard, in the context of a rejectionist, disciplined GOP machine. These unconvincing appeals to the principle of bi-partisanship are transparently cynical attempts to grant the GOP a veto over anything and everything, despite their marginalized position in the government. As you describe:

... which plainly illustrates that the GOP is completely unwilling to compromise, and will unanymously reject anything other than total surrender to their control.

And we all know perfectly well that you would not support any such standard of bi-partisanship if your party was in the majority. So please, spare us the insulting pretense that you possess some sort of principle that you are speaking from here. This is just transparent political opportunism, and it is insulting for you to try to dress it up as anything more noble than that. We've seen this before, and aren't stupid. You are stupid to imagine that this sort of cheap ploy would elicit anything beyond contempt for you.

What kind of echo-chamber idiot would post a Rasmussen Reports poll in this context? The question was what American voters actually think, not what statistics the GOP has invented to pretend that voters agree with them.

For future reference, understand that citing Rasmussen Reports as the basis for your assertions makes them less credible as anything other than partisan imaginings. The GOP doesn't represent "voters." They represent wealthy businesses and super-rich individuals who have as few qualms about buying and selling politicians and public "support" thereof as the GOP does. Which is to say: none.

That's no difference at all. The way the GOP operates is by marching in lock-step to vote against anything that isn't exactly what they want. And "exactly what they want" isn't even a question of policy (healthcare reform as enacted is more-or-less what the GOP proposed in the 1990's in response to Clinton's attempts at reform). What they want is victory over the Democrats and power, by any means necessary. There is no defensible set of principles, or collection of policy ideas as such, for you to stand on. Just the naked, craven pursuit of power for its own sake.

Lie to yourself if you must, but don't expect any of the adults to go along with your little game of make-believe. Understand that attempts to implicate us in your sick little psychodrama will be instantly recognized as such and met with withering derision and contempt.

 

Most of the things things in the "Republican Plan" that have some merit are also in the healthcare law like interstate purchasing of healthcare. And the rest of it is sheer nonsense. The Democratic plan also has incentives for good health.

Republicans have never been able to demonstrate (despite many challenges) to do so that many of the other provisions (e.g. limiting malpractice damages) would have any noticable impact on healthcare costs. The CBO is on the record saying at most it would reduce healthcare costs by 5 percent...on a good day with the wind blowing at their backs.

The so called Republican plan is for the most part a shell game. And does nothing to solve the underlying cost drivers. It maintains the healthcare oligopolies and it uses federal funds to supplement cost. That is not a sustainable plan. It is Medicare Part D on steroids which concludes with a prayer - die quick and cheap.

 

Interstate purchasing of healthcare is NOT in the current plan. The closest is they would allow states to form compacts. Consumers could then buy policies from insurers licensed in any of the states governed by the compact's agreement.
Really no different than today, except for a provision for the Feds to get involved in the case of disputes.

Arthur

 

5% of our healthcare costs is ~115 Billion dollars.

Arthur

 

But, we are having a rational discussion here, which is not what we heard at any tea party rally.

 

Oh yes it is dear Arthur. There is a national database of healthcare providers which anyone is allowed to purchase healthcare insurance regardless of their location. That is interstate under any definition.

What you mean is that there should not be a minimum standard of insurance across state lines (current law). So insurance companies could offer substandard and deceptive insurance policies to people.

 

And that assumes all of the Republican Tea Party malarkey about malpractice law was true. That is a BIG assumption which is also not founded in fact. And 5 percent doesn't even cover the average healthcare cost increases over the last few years.

If the US is going to get it's healthcare costs in line with that of its competitors, it is going to need to cut at least 50 percent of its healthcare cost. Now where are you going to get the other 45 percent?

 

You are going to have to SHOW where that is in the legislation joe.

This is all I can find on it (which is just as I explained)

the Senate health-care bill included a compromise with the conservative vision for insurance regulation. The relevant policy is in Section 1333, which allows the formation of interstate compacts. Under this provision, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho (for instance) could agree to allow insurers based in any of those states to sell plans in all of them.

But there is NO MANDATE that allows interstate sale of insurance.
A database does not ALLOW anything of and by itself.

http://geoffdavis.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Regulations_Pursuant_to_the_Patient_Protection.pdf

Arthur

 

Joe, you wrote: The CBO is on the record saying at most it would reduce healthcare costs by 5 percent

How did the CBO being "on record" morph into Republican "Malarkey"?

Arthur

 

Where are you?

Be specific.

You mention reduction of DEFICITS all the time, but that has nothing to do (necessarily) with reduction of the COST of health care.

Arthur