7. Government regulations and mandates

We probably should move this in to the third position :)

1. Decrease in Medicare & Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals must be compensated by charging higher rates to the paying public
2. Third Party payer problem – where recipient of health services are removed from paying for the services due to low deductibles and they graze the fields until there is only dirt left, groups like large union plans that strong arm insurance companies to a lower cost for which we all are paying.
3. Liability insurance cost – where doctors and hospitals must cover their asses not to get sued
4. Uninsured and illegal aliens free medical service costs are put on the paying public
5. Longer life span and new (expensive) drugs that beloved give-me generation entitled to
6. Growth of medical service use exceeds growth of doctors and hospitals

I can see why we need death panels and why we do not need more government in healthcare which is the main cause of the rise of the cost and which represents the majority of healthcare spending already.

How is the public option addresses any of these above except rationing care, so people die quicker (Granma taking a pain pill instead of expensive procedure as suggested by the President)?

Do you really think the cost is rising because insurance companies with 3% profit margins pay high executive salaries? Insurance companies only contribute to the #2 & #4 causes above and none of the others.

HSA accounts are self limiting market solution in my choice beats government rationing that is for sure to come!

I can’t believe the minority of our elected Democrats are going to stop us from doing the best option that was left. The majority of people in this country want it, even in conservative states in which these people represent. The majority held hostage by the minority. What a Democracy we have here, huh?

The bill gets more conservative by the minute, even when the Democrats hold the super majority. So let’s parse this a bit, what are the problems?

First and foremost….money in politics. As long as large corporations are allowed to buy votes, real reform will never take place. So we would all be better off fighting for this, before we can start to expect anything that is really “change”.

Remember when Howard Dean took over the DNC. What was the major case in which he used to describe many of the Democrats failures? Simply put, the Dems were acting like Republicans (Republican-light). This centrist attitude is what caused us to lose the majority in the first place. And now, yet again, the Dems are repeating this mistake. What’s the point of having a super majority, if you don’t use it?

A great opportunity wasted. This time around, I forgot to expect the worse and hope for the best, instead of the other way around. It was the whole infectious “change” moto. Boy was I duped.

I commend the progressives in the party, for fighting as hard as they could. The Blue Dogs should be ashamed, and each one should be removed; and I will work to make that happen.

At this point, I prefer that the progressives congress men and women vote NO for this bill. Without a robust public option, it has very little value. Sometimes you have to punish your own party, to push them to do the right thing and to push them to the liberal majority.

Finally, show our support, mightily for those pols who speak the truth and attack with a holy vengeance, relentlessly, those who are puppets of the cartel.
Perversely, the good news is that this PO thing isn’t going to work and THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOING AWAY. We will gain strength from the stubborness of facts. As my pop used to say, “stick around for the next act.”

See “The Progressive Power of “No”,” written way back on September 8th.

Oh, yes. I’m really happy to see the outrage at the actual inadequacy of the legislation for a change rather than Joe Lieberman whose 60th vote we don’t need anyway.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare29-2009oct29,0,7602363.story

House health compromise has ‘public option’ with a catch

The new bill would require the government to negotiate healthcare costs with providers rather than set the rates itself. Liberals hope it will get conservative Democrats on board.

By Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook

October 29, 2009

Reporting from Washington – Paving the way for a crucial vote on healthcare legislation in the next two weeks, House Democratic leaders plan to unveil a compromise bill today that would create a nationwide government-run insurance plan but omit what many liberals consider the key to cost control.

According to senior lawmakers and aides, the so-called public option in the new compromise would not dictate what the plan can pay hospitals, doctors and other providers. Instead, the federal government would have to negotiate rates with providers, much as private insurers do.

………….And Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leader of the influential Congressional Progressive Caucus, refused to throw in the towel.

“It’s not even the fourth quarter,” she said. “We will be insisting on it being as strong as it possibly can be.”

Woolsey and other liberal congressional leaders are to meet with President Obama today.

“He needs to hear from us that he needs to support the public option,” she said. “He’s not saying it loud enough. We want to make sure he lets the Senate know he wants a public option in the bill.”