Tom, I would engage with you, but you mis-spelled 'Pelosi' as 'Peolsi', so I will like a stereotypical liberal point and laugh and ignore everything else?

Stepping back, here's my sense of the effort to control health care costs in the US.

Obama and the Democrats wanted to bend the cost curve by creating an independent board to evaluate cost vs. outcome. As a small part of it, they also wanted to add end of life care discussions as a reimbursable medicare or medicaid expense. The rest of the Democratic proposals (and what really passed) was about expanding health care offerings for those without insurance or adequate care, and mandating insurance coverage to pay for it. But the parts that passed bend the cost curve in the wrong direction. To cover it, phony savings were introduced into the future that involve squeezing doctors to such an extent that it will never actually happen.

So in summary the Democratic Party's method to control health care costs was defeated, largely because the American people voted against it. The cost cutting provisions were extremely watered down or eliminated as legislators reacted to their constituents and Scott Brown's election.

Now the Republicans have proposed a plan that seeks to control costs by turning Medicare into a voucher program so that seniors will have to manage their own costs. It seems like the American people are voting against this as well as Democrats run against this proposal.

In the end, it seems like the American people are voting against any solution to our exploding health care costs. Do I have that right?

ray

In the end, it seems like the American people are voting against any solution to our exploding health care costs. Do I have that right?

No.
They are saying no to two concepts that have been offered them, at least how each has been sold or portrayed by parties oppossessed to either solution.
For instance Ray, the idea that health care costs will be brought in line because Seniors will be responsible for managing their own costs is pretty thin soup.
Ostensibly Americans are responsible for managing their own health insurane costs now, right? How's that managed to keep healthjinsurance costs down?

How much impact will an ailign senior have in negotiating drig costs? Or negotiating doctors fees?
The reality is that that the reliance on market forces to control costs don't happen when the market has very elasticity in it. By that, how many seniors will forego a treatment that might save their life or eliminate pain and discomfort in order to save a few dollars?
If you want to look at rue cost savings look at the New Zealand system for buying pharmeceuticals. (I'll try and find a link.)
If Americans were offered a true national health care plan, like Frances or Canada's, with a true representation of what its like to live under eitehr system , they tend to want that. But too many corporate players (Big Pharma, etec.) don't want their current industries to be affected and fight that notion. So as reform, you get mangled perversions that alleviate the current problems only incrementally. Who's making your laws and policies Ray? Certainly not the citizens.

Ray Jay wrote:Now the Republicans have proposed a plan that seeks to control costs by turning Medicare into a voucher program so that seniors will have to manage their own costs. It seems like the American people are voting against this as well as Democrats run against this proposal.

Ryan has objected to it being called a voucher plan. He says it is similar to the prescription drug plan. He also has said that the less you make, the more you get subsidized. He has also said it will increase competition, as the prescription drug plan (which came in under expected costs) did.


Leadership from the President:

Eric Cantor, the majority leader, told POLITICO that “we pressed him repeatedly to stop the demagoguery.” Obama, he said, replied by saying that “the demagoguery runs on both sides.”

The head of the DNC, picked by the President:

“[Republicans] would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, ‘You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves, and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions,’ ” Wasserman-Schultz told CBS’ Harry Smith. ” ‘We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.’

“These are people who have paid for their whole life into the system,” she added.

Not so says Fact Check (Ibid):

She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions.”

The Republican plan — dubbed “Path to Prosperity” by its chief architect, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — would make no changes in Medicare for those 55 and older. But it would make significant changes to Medicare for those younger than 55 — just not as described by the Florida Democrat. The plan would provide future beneficiaries with government subsidies to purchase health insurance through a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Also, the WaPo disputes her claims:

Neither of those claims are true. The system as envisioned by Republicans would operate much like the Medicare prescription drug plan currently does. The government would not give people a check or anything like that; the government would handle the funds, just as they do under the drug plan. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said when it examined the plan, “The premium support payments would go directly from the government to the plans that people selected.”

Meanwhile, different plans approved by Medicare would compete for business, as under the drug plan. Moreover, the GOP proposal specifically says that to participate in the Medicare exchange, insurance companies would have to accept all retirees. …

There are certainly details in the GOP plan, which has not been drafted as actual legislation, that need to be addressed. But Wasserman Schultz is jumping to conclusions — not to mention scaremongering metaphors — to describe provisions in the GOP Medicare plan that just do not exist.

Worse (ibid):

For the piece de resistance, the DNC hurried to corroborate Wasserman-Schultz’s statement with expert testimony from Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute. The only problem is that Cannon’s testimony says nothing of the kind. In fact, when reached by the Post, Cannon called Wasserman-Schultz’s argument “high-octane idiocy”:

We checked with Michael Cannon, director of health policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, one of the experts cited by Sevugan as backing up Wasserman Schultz’s claim. Cannon described her comment as “high-octane idiocy.”

“Ryan’s plan says that insurance companies could not turn away seniors. I’m not sure whether that means only (A) that insurers must issue a policy to all applicants (i.e., guaranteed issue) or whether Ryan’s plan would go further and (B) prevent insurers from charging sick enrollees more (i.e., price controls),” Cannon said. “I hope Ryan would not include such price controls, but I see hints that that’s where he’s leaning. If so, then the Ryan plan would include the very government guarantee that the DNC is complaining isn’t there.”

High-octane idiocy — it’s the perfect description of the Democrats and their Mediscare campaign in 2011.

The bottom line is that the Democrats are now trying to protect a failing system and demagoguing the GOP attempt to save it.

Steve, I agree with you that the Democrats are demagoging the issue. I do recall that there was a fair amount of demagoging from the Republicans as well. Both Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin talked about death panels under Obama's proposal. Did you not see that as demagoging as well?

Ray Jay wrote:Steve, I agree with you that the Democrats are demagoging the issue. I do recall that there was a fair amount of demagoging from the Republicans as well. Both Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin talked about death panels under Obama's proposal. Did you not see that as demagoging as well?

Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that "death panels" won't exist in the ultimate form that a group of people will be sentencing the ill to die. No in the sense that the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) will exist under Obama's plan. The Board will determine the limits of coverage, which, in the end, makes it a form of a "death panel." They are unelected and will hold, essentially, control of life and death in the name of "controlling costs."

That said, what the Democrats are doing is substantively worse. They know Medicare is unsustainable. They know Ryan's plan won't throw grandma off a cliff. They know something has to be done, but they are willing to defend the status quo and outright lie about Ryan's plan.

What Palin did in using the phrase "death panel" was to put a non-euphemistic appellation on a reality. This is a nice little summary of the history of "death panels" from "lie of the year" to "reality."

The term "death panel" may be offensive. That doesn't make it untrue. The liberal counter-argument is that someone is going to determine the limit of cost and it's better to have the government in control than insurance companies.

I disagree. If it's insurance companies, eventually, we will realize some insurance companies are better than others, so we can move our business accordingly. If the government's in charge, there is no choice. It's "one size fits all."

My point was this: Obama is "leading" by saying "everyone's demagoguing." That's not leadership. He simply has not ever taken a respite from being a partisan. His defense is "Republicans are doing it too." Defending bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior is not strong leadership.

No doubt both parties have their problems, but does that make it ok? Should the President be above it all?
We know a problem exists, the Republicans may not have an ideal solution but the Democrats are doing nothing and playing with voters fears by presenting opposition ideas as somehow evil while doing absolutely nothing themselves ...in effect, they are in fact doing something "evil" themselves in their refusal to do anything.

But here's the problem
I am in no way blind, the Republicans did pretty much the same damned thing a few years ago. They did nothing as Democrats came up with all their ideas. Something has to be done and we can't wait for a third party to be in charge to do so now can we? Both parties are guilty of the same thing, problem is, right NOW it's the Democrats who want to do nothing. (give it time and the tables will turn, no doubt!)

Doctor Fate wrote:If it's insurance companies, eventually, we will realize some insurance companies are better than others, so we can move our business accordingly. If the government's in charge, there is no choice. It's "one size fits all."

How can you move once you've made a claim and the insurance company's panel has declined?

My point was this: Obama is "leading" by saying "everyone's demagoguing." That's not leadership. He simply has not ever taken a respite from being a partisan. His defense is "Republicans are doing it too." Defending bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior is not strong leadership.

Nope, but at least he's being honest and not trying to claim that 'death panel' is anything other than scaremongering.

On healthcare, Obama was weak. His original stance was for less than Single-Payer (it was H Clinton and Edwards who seemed to be more inclined that way than Obama, who was being the centrist in 08). He let Congress do it rather than put forward a comprehensive plan, and then wondered why the cats wouldn't herd themselves. And the result was a fudge and a mess.

But I don't disagree with Tom here. Just as it's not good for Dems to be using demagoguery, it's pretty rich of the Republicans to whine about it when they were doing just that, on the same issue not two years ago.

If you want to show Obama to be a poor leader, outdo him by stepping out of the mire. Otherwise the cycle will just continue on and on and on...

so "death panels" is scare mongering, but lies about medicare is not?
(even though the death panel comment is more accurate than are the medicare lies)

and the Republicans (now) are offering some possible solutions, they are indeed the ones stepping out and making the offer of change. The President and the Democrats are the ones using scare tactics and doing nothing right now.

But this is not to say the Republicans are saints. Simply they are now making offers, as you suggest someone needs to do. As soon as they hold all the cards, then the tables will turn and the Dems will make offers the GOP will refuse as they cling to the "do nothing" plan. The real key is for the President to step out and make the big changes. Obama has promised change, he ran on change as his campaign promise, so far ...no change!

The debate is mostly between two groups distorting reality OR at least distorting the others arguement. Death panels? They already exist in private insurance companies if thats what you choose to label "denial of service". In a way eveery triage done at an emergency room is a "death panel".
Complicated issues deserve a more honest and open approach . "Government Takeover of Health Care was chosen by Politfact as "The Lie of the Year". Here's why:

"If you're going to tell the truth about something as complicated as health care and health care reform, you probably need at least four sentences," said Maggie Mahar, author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much. "You can"t do it in four words."

Mahar said the GOP simplification distorted the truth about the plan. "Doctors will not be working for the government. Hospitals will not be owned by the government," she said. "That's what a government takeover of health care would mean, and that's not at all what we"re doing."

source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

GMTom wrote:so "death panels" is scare mongering, but lies about medicare is not?

Please point to where I said that, Tom.

(even though the death panel comment is more accurate than are the medicare lies)

No, it really isn't. They are both inaccurate.

Obama has promised change, he ran on change as his campaign promise, so far ...no change!

The Healthcare Bill was not 'no change', Tom. It may not be enough of a change, or the wrong change, but it wasn't stasis.

Your linking only one example and not the other would certainly indicate you are calling one fear mongering and not the other.

Both are inaccurate, correct, but as pointed out earlier, one is a bigger lie than the other.
Because both are inaccurate does not make them both equally inaccurate.

The current health care bill was incredibly minor change,
Nothing like what was promised! We have a supposed system that does little more than requiring people to have insurance, what kind of change is that?

Ricky,

Would you say that "corporate takeover of healthcare" would be a more accurate way to describe the healthcare bill?

theo

Would you say that "corporate takeover of healthcare" would be a more accurate way to describe the healthcare bill?

Isn't that the status quo?
Although i agree, from my understanding of the health care act, little is being done to change that. The only improvements seem to be that there is a guarantee of access to insurance by everyone. (There aren't those people who, denied coverage because of things like pre-existing conditions etc. , left without recourse to medical treatment should they go bankrupt paying bills.
There is also some movement towards achieiving greater cost controls.
However its a far cry from a revolutionary change that would approach the kinds of cost controls and efficiencies of service delivery that socialized countries enjoy.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:If it's insurance companies, eventually, we will realize some insurance companies are better than others, so we can move our business accordingly. If the government's in charge, there is no choice. It's "one size fits all."

How can you move once you've made a claim and the insurance company's panel has declined?

I don't know. Then again, Ryan says that won't happen. Since he wrote the budget, he may know more than you (I understand it has some form of must-carry provision, but it may be a high-risk pool).

How do you appeal a government panel's decision? I promise you there will be no effective appeal because it's all "for the common good." Some people will just have to die. That's the function of IPAB.

Nope, but at least he's being honest and not trying to claim that 'death panel' is anything other than scaremongering.

So, admitting HE has been demagoguing represents "leadership" to you? Is that what you mean? Because he has clearly lied about Ryan's plan--even talking about handicapped children dying, etc. If that's not "scaremongering," what is?

On healthcare, Obama was weak. His original stance was for less than Single-Payer (it was H Clinton and Edwards who seemed to be more inclined that way than Obama, who was being the centrist in 08). He let Congress do it rather than put forward a comprehensive plan, and then wondered why the cats wouldn't herd themselves. And the result was a fudge and a mess.

Right, but he won't admit it. He could play the Statesman by announcing a grand compromise and negotiating with the GOP. He won't. I think if he did it we would get something far more workable.

If you want to show Obama to be a poor leader, outdo him by stepping out of the mire. Otherwise the cycle will just continue on and on and on...

Ryan did that. He put forth a plan, even knowing how slimy the Democrats would get. What did the "Great Man" Obama do? Put Ryan in the front row and perform as Demagogue-in-Chief.

Obama is many things, but he is no leader. He has no courage. He is like any bully and won't know how to react when he gets a political punch in the face. That's why nominating another mealy-mouthed McCain clone would be a mistake. When Obama's not challenged, he's fine. When someone points to his flaws, he reacts like a typical Chicago pol and it's not pretty.