Reconciliation...

[Ame®icano]

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yea ia , you said no problem for 65 bucks you can go to any wal marty, not in this state you can't but then again when you are used to the vet, what can you say

Give them some time. It said 2000 stores within 5-7 years. That was in 2007. Hell...who knows what Wal-Mart may have in store for the future. Imagine not just clinics next to the beauty products aisle but maybe there will be Wal-Mart hospitals all over the country. Non-union, of course. They have to contain some of the costs.

I don't know about you, but I find this hopeful.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yep, we're the scum that want to run the country according to the principles on which it was founded. We bad.

No. You're not bad or evil, simply conservative. The principles (the Mission Statement) of our country is written very clearly in the preamble to our Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Conservatives care not for the essence of these words, they (you) focus only on that which supports your ideology, which may be summerized by this: I've got mine, screw you!

85% of "We the People" are happy with their healthcare, wry.
over 50% of "We the People" do not want this particuliar healthcare bill.

I can't make it any simpler for you, wry. Please take off your partisan glasses for 15 seconds and try to understand what "We the People" really want.

85% are happy? I doubt that, but giving your statistic the benefit of the doubt, that leaves 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Forty-Five Million living in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And that's just fine in you opinion?

 

[rdean]

You have to admit that $65 for a visit and $4 for a prescription is bringing health care to the poor among us. It'd cost 10 times that much for an emergency room visit. That saves you and me, the taxpayers, and gives the poor guy a feeling of pride that he can pay for his health care visit without relying on the public's welfare.

It's a win/win situation.

Actually, I previously posted the average cost for a doctor at a clinic is between 60 and 200dollars. The average visit to an emergency room is just over a thousand dollars and if you are between 45 and 65, it's just over $1,500.

Oh, and the average cost for one day in the hospital is $4,700.

and you ass clowns bitch about insurance companies!!!????

What a joke!!!!!

That's if you don't have insurance. Were you making a point?

 

[Vanquish]

You have to admit that $65 for a visit and $4 for a prescription is bringing health care to the poor among us. It'd cost 10 times that much for an emergency room visit. That saves you and me, the taxpayers, and gives the poor guy a feeling of pride that he can pay for his health care visit without relying on the public's welfare.

It's a win/win situation.

Actually, I previously posted the average cost for a doctor at a clinic is between 60 and 200dollars. The average visit to an emergency room is just over a thousand dollars and if you are between 45 and 65, it's just over $1,500.

Oh, and the average cost for one day in the hospital is $4,700.

and you ass clowns bitch about insurance companies!!!????

What a joke!!!!!

Damn right we do. Because they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels. They're the ones that let people pay in for decades, sometimes lifetimes...and then simply because they can...deny people coverage.

Business...like government...that goes about it's work unchecked will just run over whomever it can. Republicans like you live in a fantasy world...on one hand you scream "free market free market" but you're blind to what happens in the real world.

Not all businesses are evil, but if they're smart, they try to make a profit...with insurance it's at the expense of people's health. I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm anti-corruption.

 

[EriktheRed]

Reconciliation Instructions: The process begins with the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution. These instructions require authorizing committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending and revenue policies (usually more than one) to make legislative changes in those programs to effect a specified level of budgetary savings provisions. The instructions typically cover the same fiscal years as the budget resolution, with separate dollar amounts specified for each of the years in the budget resolution. While the Budget Committees develop these instructions based on policy assumptions for changes in programs and laws (which are often printed in the committee reports on the budget resolution), the authorizing committees have complete discretion over the specific programs to be changed and the substance of those changes. An authorizing committee must only meet the specified spending and/or revenue directive given it. The budget resolution normally includes a timetable by which the authorizing committees must report legislation that meets these saving targets. These committees generally hold hearings and mark-up these legislative products which are sent to the Budget Committees.

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

I'm seeing terms like "typically", "normally" and "generally". What is actually being violated here?

For the love of God, Erik......This IS What The Nuclear Option Was Set Up For.
Stop your damn spinning on it. Like I said, it has never been used beforeon bills like this, and it wasn't set up for legislating a bill like this.
This is the reason that level headed democrats aren't buying into the reconcilaiation, they understand and you don't.


You wanted the rules, and I've shown you the rules......and it was about budgetary items only, they didn't write anything more broad than that. So if your looking at what's in the 4 borders of the paper, it's not for legistlating the healthcare bill.

What was Medicare Part D?

 

[EriktheRed]

[I don't believe the Senate ever got around to voting for their Health Care Bill did they? Scott Brown's 41st vote upheld the filibuster. So what does the House have to do with it now? They're using reconciliation to require only 51 votes.

OMG!

 

[Liability]

* * * * I don't believe the Senate ever got around to voting for their Health Care Bill did they? Scott Brown's 41st vote upheld the filibuster. So what does the House have to do with it now? They're using reconciliation to require only 51 votes.

Alas, a version passed in the Senate, too, before Brown's election.

Now, despite public opposition, they could re-pass it as a reconciliation of the two versions without having to worry about a filibuster.

But many of the Dims KNOW it would be electoral suicide. So even reconciliation is a problem for them.

The Dims are an ineffectual lot, thankfully.

 

[mudwhistle]

Gee you mean WAL mART ATUALLY BROUGHT YOU A DOC , I THOUGHT YOU STUPID FUCKING HICKS ONLY WENT TO A VET, NO WONDER YOU THINK THAT IS AN IMPROVMENT

You have to admit that $65 for a visit and $4 for a prescription is bringing health care to the poor among us. It'd cost 10 times that much for an emergency room visit. That saves you and me, the taxpayers, and gives the poor guy a feeling of pride that he can pay for his health care visit without relying on the public's welfare.

It's a win/win situation.

Costs are going up because the expense of medicine is being driven up by several factors.

Medicare and Tricare doesn't want to pay the bill. If they do it's only a max of 80% so the doctor is getting stiffed.

Regulations prevent competition in the prescriptions market.

Trial lawyers are suing everything in sight.

Corruption and fraud are rampant.

Washington is the most corrupt so it's impossible for a bunch of crooks to get rid of the corruption in the insurance industry mainly because they are partly responsible for it.

 

[Murf76]

Damn right we do. Because they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels. They're the ones that let people pay in for decades, sometimes lifetimes...and then simply because they can...deny people coverage.

Business...like government...that goes about it's work unchecked will just run over whomever it can. Republicans like you live in a fantasy world...on one hand you scream "free market free market" but you're blind to what happens in the real world.

Not all businesses are evil, but if they're smart, they try to make a profit...with insurance it's at the expense of people's health. I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm anti-corruption.

Huh? How do insurance companies add costs to treatment? How does contracting with an insurance company raise a doctor's overhead?

Consider that medical treatment is ALREADY heavily regulated, primarily by the States. So... you don't have a "free market" example to rant from.

And while you're hating on profit... why should anybody bother to provide medical service to YOU? Should it just be for the thrill of basking in your august company?
'Cause frankly, I don't think you're going to get many takers on that. I rather imagine they'll want compensation.

 

[Vanquish]

Damn right we do. Because they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels. They're the ones that let people pay in for decades, sometimes lifetimes...and then simply because they can...deny people coverage.

Business...like government...that goes about it's work unchecked will just run over whomever it can. Republicans like you live in a fantasy world...on one hand you scream "free market free market" but you're blind to what happens in the real world.

Not all businesses are evil, but if they're smart, they try to make a profit...with insurance it's at the expense of people's health. I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm anti-corruption.

Huh? How do insurance companies add costs to treatment? How does contracting with an insurance company raise a doctor's overhead?

Consider that medical treatment is ALREADY heavily regulated, primarily by the States. So... you don't have a "free market" example to rant from.

And while you're hating on profit... why should anybody bother to provide medical service to YOU? Should it just be for the thrill of basking in your august company?
'Cause frankly, I don't think you're going to get many takers on that. I rather imagine they'll want compensation.

Apparently you cant read. I said ....*clear throat*

I'm not anti-capitalism.

*clear throat*

There's a point to where any business or industry given enough power can misuse the leverage they have over the consumer. The insurance industry has been doing that.

I'm a small business man - partner in my law firm. We make a profit. I'm not ANTI-profit. As I tried to explain, I'm anti-corruption.

And at least we agree on something. There IS NO free market. Ever since religions and governments have ruled bodies of people, controls have been put on the economy. It's ridiculous when conservatives chant "free market free market" like it's some Abracadabra that wins arguments.

So...finally to your main question...how do insurance costs cause higher actual medical costs. Well I dont think I ever said that, although it is true. When you have X paying Y for Z's treatment...there's no accountability and if X has a large pool of Z's paying in premiums, then Y (doctors) can raise costs because X has a huge pool of money to pay from. That's just the facts man. We put up with a system like that out of fear that we, personally, might get something that costs $134123120381203 to treat.

Then there's the inefficiency/overhead of private insurance which is over 20% of total costs. You dont think that gets passed on to the consumer? All at the risk of being dropped just because an insurance company can.

It'd be great to live in a fantasy world where insurance companies wouldn't choose themselves and their profit over people who have legitimately paid for coverage. But none of us actually live there.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No. You're not bad or evil, simply conservative. The principles (the Mission Statement) of our country is written very clearly in the preamble to our Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Conservatives care not for the essence of these words, they (you) focus only on that which supports your ideology, which may be summerized by this: I've got mine, screw you!

85% of "We the People" are happy with their healthcare, wry.
over 50% of "We the People" do not want this particuliar healthcare bill.

I can't make it any simpler for you, wry. Please take off your partisan glasses for 15 seconds and try to understand what "We the People" really want.

85% are happy? I doubt that, but giving your statistic the benefit of the doubt, that leaves 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Forty-Five Million living in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And that's just fine in you opinion?

45 million? That means you are counting non-working children who don't like their health insurance when it is the parent who are providing it to them. To be accurate, you should be counting only 15% of the adults who have or don't have insurance. Then subtract the 20 million illegals who shouldn't be counted in the first place.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

* * * * I don't believe the Senate ever got around to voting for their Health Care Bill did they? Scott Brown's 41st vote upheld the filibuster. So what does the House have to do with it now? They're using reconciliation to require only 51 votes.

Alas, a version passed in the Senate, too, before Brown's election.

Now, despite public opposition, they could re-pass it as a reconciliation of the two versions without having to worry about a filibuster.

But many of the Dims KNOW it would be electoral suicide. So even reconciliation is a problem for them.

The Dims are an ineffectual lot, thankfully.

Yeah, you're right. It's getting so confusing because we have been back and forth for over a year with proposed bills, slap-downs, re-writes, voting, bribing, re-voting that I lost track of where it was in the Senate. You'd think that the Democrats, with a clear majority in the Congress and a President with pen in hand, would have passed this HC bill within the first few weeks of this Congressional session.

So now I'm up to speed again. Both the House and Senate have passed their Bills, now they need to come up with a single bill for the President to sign (reconciliation). The House can simply accept the Senate bill unchanged and they are a go for signing (not likely); or, the Senate can accept provisions of the House Bill which will require 60 votes to accomplish. Scott "#41" Brown nixed that. The only thing left is the "nuclear option", which is clearly against Senate rules in this case.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Damn right we do. Because they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels. They're the ones that let people pay in for decades, sometimes lifetimes...and then simply because they can...deny people coverage.

Business...like government...that goes about it's work unchecked will just run over whomever it can. Republicans like you live in a fantasy world...on one hand you scream "free market free market" but you're blind to what happens in the real world.

Not all businesses are evil, but if they're smart, they try to make a profit...with insurance it's at the expense of people's health. I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm anti-corruption.

I keep hearing this accusation from your side, so I'd like to see some proof that insurance companies are arbitrarily denying coverage "because they can". If there is a medical procedure that is considered a medically accepted practice, there is no legal way an insurance company could deny coverage - especially if that procedure is listed in the contract. Now, if there is a new procedure that has not been determined to be medically effective, then the insurance company has the right and fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders to deny coverage. There is nothing wrong in that to justify the Left's demonetization of the industry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many uninsured are there? It's not good, when we start off making guesses out in the tens of millions column and the numbers differs from "more than 30 million" all the way out to "47 million"

The second number is 50% greater than the former!!

That's really fucked -- from a statistical point of view

 

[saveliberty]

No. You're not bad or evil, simply conservative. The principles (the Mission Statement) of our country is written very clearly in the preamble to our Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Conservatives care not for the essence of these words, they (you) focus only on that which supports your ideology, which may be summerized by this: I've got mine, screw you!

85% of "We the People" are happy with their healthcare, wry.
over 50% of "We the People" do not want this particuliar healthcare bill.

I can't make it any simpler for you, wry. Please take off your partisan glasses for 15 seconds and try to understand what "We the People" really want.

85% are happy? I doubt that, but giving your statistic the benefit of the doubt, that leaves 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Forty-Five Million living in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And that's just fine in you opinion?

Estimates place the number of people without health insurance in 2010 at 52 million.

More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday said they're satisfied with the quality of health care they receive.

And nearly three out of four said they're happy with their overall health care coverage.

Poll: Health care costs too expensive, Americans say - CNN.com

It should be noted that many people choose NOT to carry coverage by personal choice. Those that would like coverage have a substantial number who can't pay for it due to unemployment. Even with this legislation, approxiamtely 20 million will still be without insurance plus those that choose to pay the fine and not have it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

How many uninsured are there? It's not good, when we start off making guesses out in the tens of millions column and the numbers differs from "more than 30 million" all the way out to "47 million"

The second number is 50% greater than the former!!

That's really fucked -- from a statistical point of view

They are including children as if they are responsible for buying health insurance and are unhappy with it. If you count only adults, who are responsible for buying insurance (90,000,000), you would find that 13.5 million are unhappy about HC insurance out of 300,000,000 people. Subtract 6 million illegal adults from that number and you are left with 7.5 million who are unhappy.

 

[Murf76]

Damn right we do. Because they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels. They're the ones that let people pay in for decades, sometimes lifetimes...and then simply because they can...deny people coverage.

Business...like government...that goes about it's work unchecked will just run over whomever it can. Republicans like you live in a fantasy world...on one hand you scream "free market free market" but you're blind to what happens in the real world.

Not all businesses are evil, but if they're smart, they try to make a profit...with insurance it's at the expense of people's health. I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm anti-corruption.

Huh? How do insurance companies add costs to treatment? How does contracting with an insurance company raise a doctor's overhead?

Consider that medical treatment is ALREADY heavily regulated, primarily by the States. So... you don't have a "free market" example to rant from.

And while you're hating on profit... why should anybody bother to provide medical service to YOU? Should it just be for the thrill of basking in your august company?
'Cause frankly, I don't think you're going to get many takers on that. I rather imagine they'll want compensation.

Apparently you cant read. I said ....*clear throat*

I'm not anti-capitalism.

*clear throat*

There's a point to where any business or industry given enough power can misuse the leverage they have over the consumer. The insurance industry has been doing that.

I'm a small business man - partner in my law firm. We make a profit. I'm not ANTI-profit. As I tried to explain, I'm anti-corruption.

And at least we agree on something. There IS NO free market. Ever since religions and governments have ruled bodies of people, controls have been put on the economy. It's ridiculous when conservatives chant "free market free market" like it's some Abracadabra that wins arguments.

So...finally to your main question...how do insurance costs cause higher actual medical costs. Well I dont think I ever said that, although it is true. When you have X paying Y for Z's treatment...there's no accountability and if X has a large pool of Z's paying in premiums, then Y (doctors) can raise costs because X has a huge pool of money to pay from. That's just the facts man. We put up with a system like that out of fear that we, personally, might get something that costs $134123120381203 to treat.

Then there's the inefficiency/overhead of private insurance which is over 20% of total costs. You dont think that gets passed on to the consumer? All at the risk of being dropped just because an insurance company can.

It'd be great to live in a fantasy world where insurance companies wouldn't choose themselves and their profit over people who have legitimately paid for coverage. But none of us actually live there.

Oh... I can read just fine. Like when I read this...." they are the ones, with their haggling and red tape that have slowly raised the costs to insane levels.

So I ask again... How does contracting with an insurance company raise the cost of a doctor's overhead?

Typically, when a doctor contracts with an insurance company, he agrees to discount his/her services. IOW, the cost of the treatment to the consumer is LESS than the going rate. And because doctors enter into these contracts freely, they are free to decide if the extra access to patients is worth the expense of working at a discount rate. When the prices are cut too deeply, or the administrative expenses of dealing with a particular insurance become burdensome... doctors will drop those carriers at the end of the contract period.

That's why not every doctor takes every insurance. In my county, you can't hardly find a doctor who will take Kaiser Permanente, and a few years back, BCBS was having trouble keeping doctors in my area who would provide BlueChoice.

You say you're a lawyer. Do you not understand contracts?... that these agreements are entered into freely by both parties? It's only reason that both will decide if the contract is advantageous or not and proceed accordingly.

If you ask me... the REAL reason for the rise in medical treatment... is government interference and, well... lawyers.

The FDA is a great example of both. It takes 10-20 years and billions of research dollars to bring a new drug to market, all the while funding this over-bloated, government behemoth. And in less than half the time, the ambulance chasers are out filing class action suits on products that were FDA-approved.

We overspend on testing. We overspend on administrative costs. And we do that, because we live in a litigious society that believes people are entitled to be LAZY, that they shouldn't be responsible for their own safety or for choosing what they put into their own bodies; that they shouldn't have to bother with understanding their insurance or taking care of their own paperwork. And they don't think they should have to actually PAY for any medical service they receive.

Insurance is supposed to be just that... insurance. That means if something catastrophic happens, you don't lose your assets. It shouldn't be for runny noses, or birth control, or basic medical services. And here is where you're almost right about insurance being the problem. It's not because of "red tape" or "haggling"... it's because it EXISTS. Because people don't have to decide whether the price of a given service is affordable or worth the expense. They have no skin in the game. They don't make consumer choices.
It's not their money. It's the insurance company's money. It's the employer's money.

And what do you libs want to do?... make that situation WORSE by mandating that employers provide insurance, and that individuals buy insurance. You replace a stick in the spoke of the wheels of supply and demand with a BIGGER STICK.

The nasty insurance profits that you appear to be so concerned about are only about 3-4%.
Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
And the administrative overhead of doing business would certainly be less... if insurance wasn't confused with "health plans", if they weren't managing every aspect of a customer's healthcare and people were taking responsibility for the health and the dollars paid for services.

Oh... and the idea that you get dropped if you get sick, is ridiculous. Just like everyone else, these companies are required to fulfill their contract obligations. And of course, Mr. Lawyer, that means what's actually IN THE CONTRACT. Consumers who have a legitimate claim that their insurance company didn't live up to the agreement have recourse in our court system. I know several people who've had catastrophic medical events, and paid nothing but their co-pay.

 

[boedicca]

Apparently you cant read. I said ....*clear throat*

I'm not anti-capitalism.

*clear throat*

There's a point to where any business or industry given enough power can misuse the leverage they have over the consumer. The insurance industry has been doing that.

So the answer to a business that has gotten too powerful (despite the fact that it has free competition and there are alternative choices in the market place), is to replace that business with a government that has vastly more power and guns to enforce it?

 

[Oddball]

There's a point to where any business or industry given enough power can misuse the leverage they have over the consumer. The insurance industry has been doing that.

And your "solution" is to turn that abusive and misused power over to a bunch of unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats, so we can spread the misery around?

Brilliant!