Health care reform almost at the finish line... correction: it's finished

No union worker wants Obama's bill to pass because, currently, union workers have the best health care coverage.Obama's plan is going to lower the treatment you get, a section of his plan is entitled "Policies to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse." Fraud and abuse (whatever that gets defined as) sure, that would be great. But "waste" pretty much stands for "excessive tests and procedures that doctors routinely perform." This means the new standard for health care will be less tests and less procedures for those who have, and pay for, for corporate health care.This continues to be a corporate take over of health care that Obama is proposing in his plan. It's stupid to think otherwise. It's all about profit. source

quote:

---

The high standards of health care embodied in Medicare and union plans are being undermined, setting a much lower standard nationally. Once these plans are killed, the corporate vultures will swoop in with their individual mandate to make billions of dollars, while the threshold for quality care will be lowered drastically with the mass rationing of health care.

​

Anyone interested in saving health care must fight the Democrats’ plans, while demanding that Medicare be extended to everyone. To ensure that Medicare is financially sound, taxes on the wealthy and corporations must be raised, while the health care monopoly corporations should be nationalized and run as public utilities. These ideas can be made a reality only through the united and organized effort of the Labor Movement, retiree organizations, community groups and anyone else interested in saving and extending real health care in the U.S.

---

- Oni

Umm, the coporate health care system...? The same one you currently have...?They will, under this plan, set the *new* standard for the type of coverage you get. Also, they get an increase of clients since now everyone has health insurance.Lower the coverage + Increase in clients = (I'll let you answer)Lets not forget the proposed tax on the "Cadillac health care plan," which will tax employers for offering their workers quality health care after a certain threshold; the worse the health care offered, the lower the tax. This is why union workers are/where mostly against it. Union workers have great health care, once their companies stop providing the quality plans because they are being taxed, they'll drop the quality plan and union workers suffer.Flyer is right in thinking his great health care plan will suffer because of this. It is also, but it's limited to those with insurance. All I'm saying is that this bill is about profit and the lowering of health care coverage to acheive a greater profit. Who suffers? Those with the shitty health care plan - which will be, after the Cadillac Tax, everyone.And all that is without even getting into the corruption and control that the Pharm Industry has on all this. And how, if they decided to lower the prices of medicine, a shitload could be save on health insurance, with just that alone. But they won't. You'll get less health care, corporate healthcare providers will profit a lot more due to an increase in clients and a decrease in coverage and the Pharm Industry will ALSO have an increase in clients and an increase in profit.How awesome is that?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

He doesn't have to change, what will happen is that employers and insurers will not offer premium insurance because of the heavy tax. Instead, they'll adopt the shitty, government provided health care (that's an assumption, but a reasonable one).Labor unions, like Flyers(since he's a cop), or teachers, nurses, construction workers, etc., are not happy about this. source- Oni

Well, do you have premium insurance? How old are you? Where do you live? How much medical attention do you need?The average family policy in Miami cost over $20,000 a year, and that's pretty close to the definition of "cadillac" plan. Different markets cost more or less. source

quote:

---

By 2019 the benefits tax would hit one-fifth of households making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, according to figures from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. The tax would pose a heavy burden on working families.

---

You're right. I should have used quotes on "government plan". I'm just refering to the type of insurance that this Bill will lead to. Agreed.There is a way to do this without this plan though. There already exists a socialized health care plan that is government provided and has good health care coverage(obviously the private sector ruins this most of the time) - problem is it's only for people 65 years old or above. But it doesn't have to be. It could be for everyone.- Oni

No, there are MANY "mega-machine healthcare providers" - the biggest in Florida is Blue Cross/Blue Shield.But really, any health insurance provider is a corporate enitity. First, this is common knowledge. Health insurance is provided by large corporations most of the time. Especially premium health insurance.Second, what source did I provide you with that was bias? Bias in what way? Im a stand up comic, I have no insurance. My kidney stones cost me (well I haven't paid it yet...) $5000. So yes, I do know.This plan is great for you. But for many Americans (the large majority in some markets) it is not. Especially not for union workers with premiuim insurance and older people.So while I recognize the benefit, I can also point out the down fall.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I knew Straggler started a thread about this a while back, I was looking for it and finally found it. Healthcare In The USAThis was back in August. I love Straggler's opening question: Both then and now, Starggler, the answer is no. It's a good read to see where some of our opinions where then and where they are now.Remember the death panels? - Oni

I made a mistake in the last post. I meant to say this plan is good for you, I wrote "me". I corrected it.You have an employer, I don't. Honestly I don't know if this will benefit me at all.I actually wanted socialized medicine.But I get what you're saying. What bothers me is the corruption between the government, the insurers, the pharm industry and the fake sincerity being portrayed by our government. That some how this is about the people. It's not. It's about money. It's about the pharm industry, it's about the insurers, it's about the lobbyist and the other fucktards in Washington.That's who benefits from all this and that's who's interests were in mind when formulating this Bill. Not the poor, uninsured folk. The pharm industry and insurers could give a shit about them, neither do the lobbyist. All the Obama admin is doing is setting up a plan where all sides meet their individual needs.I posted this in the old thread that Straggler started, I'll repost it here: SurceFrom that article:

quote:

---

Obama and Big Pharma: Deal or No Deal?
by Jon Brooks
Aug 9, 2009

​

The latest flare-up was sparked this week when the LA Times reported that the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, was crowing about what Big Pharma had received in return for agreeing to $80 billion in cost savings plus the bankrolling of a pro-reform campaign:

​

Tauzin said he had not only received the White House pledge to forswear Medicare drug price bargaining, but also a separate promise not to pursue another proposal Obama supported during the campaign: importing cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe.

​

Both proposals could cost the industry billionsThe next day, The New York Times corroborated the deal:

​

...White House officials...assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion

---

- Oni

It's another system set forth with the interests of Big Business in mind. All they are doing is taking one problem and turning it into another problem, while still making sure profits don't go down.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Not really. Most unions offer premium insurance at a very reasonable cost. Also, premium insurance is usually used more often by older people, those who need to see specialists and demand more care. By taking premium insurance away, you screw all these people who need better coverage.You even grip about it here: Premium insurance DOES cover this extra stuff. And that's the reason this Bill will hurt many older people who will get screwed with medical bills for all the extra stuff they need. When, currently, their premium insurance covers it.Any way you look at this Bill, its gonna screw someone. There are better ways and the government knows this. But since it is more about special interest groups and financial gain, we get this Bill.- Oni

The pulic option was something that was supposed to be on the Bill. Now everyone is condeming the idea. But there is a reason why. Read the article about the NY Times reporter.Howard Dean in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post 3 month's ago:

quote:

---

"If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current healthcare bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over healthcare and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real healthcare reform."

---

From the Huff Post: NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option

quote:

---

For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. (See here, here and here). I've been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial story last August in the New York Times, no major media outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further.

---

Furthermore...

quote:

---

On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:

​

"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."

​

Kirkpatrick also acknowledged that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina had confirmed the existence of the deal.

---

And finally...

quote:

---

Polls indicate that about 60% of voters support a public option while only about 1/3 support the overall Democratic healthcare bill. There still time -- very little time -- for Democrats to shift course and include a public option in the final bill, even if it means going back on the White House's backroom deal with the hospital industry. If the media picks up on this story, perhaps the White House and Congressional Democrats can be embarrassed into changing course. If, on the other hand, Democrats continue to honor these special interest deals, then passing an unpopular health care bill may just be walking into a Republican trap.

---

What more evidence do we need to see the system, on both sides, is only out to make corporatist deals? The people are of no concern to our elected officials.- Oni

He's also a moron because Puerto Ricans are usually conservative, very religious and would vote Republican.- Oni

Well, I'll give you two answers/personal theories:1) Religion. Hispanics are very religious. And, anti-gay for some reason, maybe latin machismo. Dunno. They side with republicans on many "morality" issues. I assume this too for blacks - and judging by the Prop 8 deal in Cali, where religious black people were a strong influence in that vote, I'd say I'm pretty accurate in that opinion.2) This goes for cubans only, which is where I have my personal understanding of the reason why, having talked to many, many (almost to the point of being obnoxious) family and friends on why I should vote republican each time - regardless of who's running against them. (Except for one time, which made me laugh my ass off, when a local cuban guy, Alex Penelas, was running against a black guy. The cuban happened to be running as a democrat. Lol. Guess which way every cuban voted that time?).Most of the time cuban's vote republican, one because of all the reasons I state above, and two, because of Kennedy and the Bay of Pig's deal. My dad, having been there, with a few brothers and many friends, etc., will NEVER vote democrat because of it. That's why most republican candidates, when they campaign in Miami, they push for tougher embargo enforcement. To get the support of the cuban community who hates Castro.This is my opinion on it, but I think these are the reasons why.- Oni