In2 Channelling Mondale

I’ll freely admit that amidst the speak of Barack Obama being Kennedy or FDR I was one in the Carter camp. Yes yes I thought BHO would be a fizzle. In a weird twist he has chosen to channel Walter Mondale instead.

I paraphrase of course but in his healthcare speech to the AMA this is the meat.

Employers will have to pay more

Doctors will have to do more for less

Citizens will pay more and get less

I do believe that rates right up there with “I will raise your taxes.” Sure the Obamabots and assorted love struck tools will claim he is honest and daring. I say he’s a scared rabbit spending his capital in five months like a nervous school boy shoots his first wad in the backseat. Way to go moron,see ya in 2012.

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. Marc says:

    Alfie,
    Sorry bub but you need to read up. the problem with healthcare is overservicing, or the fact that we’re getting quantity and not quality. There’s a direct correlation between cost inflation and the increase in procedures, and areas with lower or higher numbers of procedures per capita generally have the same standard of living. So, should doctors do less? Yes, they do more cause they get paid more, regardless of whether you need it.

  2. Alfie says:

    Employers will pay more $$$
    Doctors will work more and get less $$$ for their labor
    The people will pay higher taxes PLUS premiums and get rationed care. i think I’m pretty much caught up on Obama’s current available models and positions
    i think you’re taking the apples oranges route. I’m working off of BHO’s speech

  3. Marc says:

    Alfie,
    care to quote the relevant sections. I doubt he put them in the light you’re providing us.

  4. Alfie says:

    Now, what makes this moment different is that this time — for the first time — key stakeholders are aligning not against, but in favor of reform. They’re coming out — they’re coming together out of a recognition that while reform will take everyone in our health care community to do their part — everybody is going to have to pitch in — ultimately, everybody will benefit.

    you promised to work together to cut national health care spending by $2 trillion over the next decade, relative to what it would have otherwise been. And that will bring down costs; that will bring down premiums. That’s exactly the kind of cooperation we need, and we appreciate that very much. Thank you.
    this is a lie,so where’s the $$$

    There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I’m talking about. It’s a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can’t spend much time with each, and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it’s not necessary. It’s a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession — a calling — to a business.
    Unfortunately the law professor left out the reality. The reason isn’t greed.It’s mandates from insurance companies and litigation. It’s safety net medicine and it’s bad. He actually had the balls to stress later that he wasn’t going to help the docs on this front. Now relative to his model there will be standards of care established. This of course is code for rationing and parceling. You think you get denied care now ?

    Again, this is for people who aren’t happy with their current plan. If you like what you’re getting, keep it. Nobody is forcing you to shift. But if you’re not, this gives you some new options. And I believe one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices — (applause) — and inject competition into the health care market so that force — so that we can force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.
    Now, even if we accept all of the economic and moral reasons for providing affordable coverage to all Americans, there is no denying that expanding coverage will come at a cost, at least in the short run. But it is a cost that will not — I repeat — will not add to our deficits. I’ve set down a rule for my staff, for my team — and I’ve said this to Congress — health care reform must be, and will be, deficit-neutral in the next decade. This is either naive or a blatant lie. Reality won’t allow it unless and this is a maybe at best,Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated and replaced by the “public option that isn’t national health lol

    Another way we can achieve savings is by reducing payments to hospitals for treating uninsured people. I know hospitals rely on these payments now, legitimately, because of the large number of uninsured patients that they treat. But if we put in a system where people have coverage and the number of uninsured people goes down with our reforms, the amount we pay hospitals to treat uninsured people should go down, as well.
    Now, that starts with reforming the way we compensate our providers — doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren’t paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead paid well for how you treat the overall disease.
    Well again BHO launches his own admitted big IF. In a staged implementation since there is no way this happens like a light switch the providers will get bit. Also any given disease actually has different treatments. It is ludicrous that a check up,insulin levels appointment which = x$ is the same as the surgical debridement of decubiti. Common in late stage diabetes just to use the POTUS’s example
    So Marc there are just the starters. Call me partisan,crazy or ignorant. I don’t care. Noble ideas don’t alter reality. I promote reform as much as the next guy regardless of what you think of me. Obama has proposed the ultimate budget buster that sounds good for the long term economy. The problem is it’s funding is based primarily on “savings” That’s not reality. We are deficit spending now,are in a debt forever situation so any savings are a lie, an illusion.
    I’ll let him take some of his steps as they are good ideas. I think the public option is national health and is wrong,stupid and criminal.

  5. Marc says:

    Comment #1: The AMA, insurers and hospitals provided Congress and Obama with a plan to cut $2 trillion in costs 2 months ago or so, which is what Obama’s referring to, and is supposedly being implemented into the overall legislation. So I’m not sure what about this statement is supposed to be a “lie” but if you’re dubious about the ability to cut, you could read the proposal.

    Comment #2: I’m not sure how “standards of care” becomes code for rationing. However, a lot of what is happening is patients get looked at for 5 minutes about their symptoms and instead of providing further examination, it’s easier for the doctor, time wise, to just order up a test in an instance where the diagnosis could be confirmed by further physical examination. I’m not making this crap up. Look at Rochester, MN, home to one of the Mayo clinics, and where the people have arguably the best healthcare services in the country. They also, suprisingly, have some of the cheapest, largely because smart, more qualified Mayo doctors know to spend longer periods of time with their patients, and get most of their diagnosises without ordering up expensive tests. Insurers and litigation are part of the problem too, but here’s a shocker, patients almost never sue a doctor they like. How could they come to be liked? spending time with them!

    Comment #3: Really, I don’t know if it’s possible to make it budget nuetral. However, lowered costs should mean lowered Medicare and Medicaid expenses. The CBO just put out a semi-flawed report, which I think just rocked a lot of people’s worlds. Hopefully it results in a cheaper plan.

    Comment #4: Not sure what you’re getting at here. O’s statement makes perfect sense to me.

    Alfie,
    I understand you’re dedicated to reform, but my biggest criticism of the GOP right now, is that while they are clearly opposed to Dems healthcare plans, they don’t have a very cohesive one of there own. Furthermore, many Republicans gave lip service to reform in the 1994 failed attempt too and after Hillarycare died, THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING. I don’t think we can afford it, individually as families or as a nation, not to do anything.

    Also, sidenote, non-profit insurance co-ops is not an alternative. First of all, point to me where in other aspects of the insurance industry, non-profit insurers have been competitive. Second of all, responsible insurers need considerable cash reserves which they’d get from… where? Third, if the problem with the insurance industry is it’s for-profit nature and profit emphasis, then what the hell is the difference between having non-profits and co-ops? At least one national plan would assure a consistency of standards.

  6. Alfie says:

    The Senate helping me ?
    • Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.
    • Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.
    • A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers’ health care expenditures.
    • Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels — a less likely option but one that still is in the running.

  7. Marc says:

    Alfie,
    I find the dichotomy in statement 1 and 2 a little bizarre. I find it hard to argue first off that a raise in the cost of pop (Midwestern word for soda) is seriously degrading your standard of living, especially if you’re making over $200,000. Of course I could be taking “me” far to literally and you’re not making more than $200,000, in which case the Senate isn’t effecting you at all.

    Again Alfie, if Republicans have a budget nuetral plan for healthcare reform without raising taxes, I’d love to see one.

  8. Alfie says:

    The soda sin tax will effect everyone and is a precursor to other predictable nanny taxes in the name of good health. (aka Twinkie Taxes)
    And let’s throw out the number two since I don’t make 200k. My boss does and he might care but….
    Serious let’s just look at 3 and 4. That’s got me and everyone else painted all over it.
    \As for your closing. Well I’d like to see it too but that by no means makes me more open to the Democrat option

  9. Marc says:

    Well, I really don’t think we can afford ever-increasing healthcare costs. So, lacking a good alternative from the conservatives, I think I’ll just keep weighing in as I can on ways to improve the current one.

    Frankly Alfie, I’m tired of being told what I “can’t” do from Republicans without providing some kind of viable alternative. We’ve got real problems to address, and if they’re not helping, get out of the way. I for one don’t think we’ll get out of this without some taxes, and I’m willing to accept some increased tax burden for the services we’re talking about and if I have to be taxed, I’d rather it be on my pop then on the things which are more substantive to my life.

  10. Alfie says:

    Well those will come also Marc but let me take a moment to thank you for civilly discussing something I know you’re passionate about

Comments are closed.