Doctors back House health bill »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 4 months, 2 weeks ago in Health & Fitness
The AMA strongly endorsed the House of Representatives health-reform bill.
Read Full Story at politico.com »
273 Views Share Story 35 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Rats live on no evil star!
Wasilla: All I saw...
Sorry, just palindroming around with terrorists.
Are you still ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 35 (view all)
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa4 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The House of Representatives bill is the one that is the least sabotaged with lobby money and special interests. This is the ONLY one endorsed by the AMA. It has a public option and in fact will do the job.
Reply
This is a good bill.
Be very wary of anything the Senate or finance committee comes up with, they already caved on a public option.-
100%
Beau78904 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Senate Finance Committee bill is a fake, intended only to pretend to address the healthcare system problem for political purposes without actually doing anything constructive. It'll cost more than the House plan, remove the responsibility from employers to pay (and not require them to offer anything to employees) while mandating individuals buy their insurance, and fail to provide a public option.
Reply
It's purely a political ploy out of fear senators will be criticized for inaction on healthcare reform in the next election cycle. (Well, and in Max Baucus's case, out of payment for the millions he's received from private healthcare and pharmaceutical interests.)
The House bill is the only proposal being discussed that actually addresses most of the problems of our current healthcare system. It's not perfect, but it does most of what it's supposed to without hiding anything.
-
-
-
-
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
100%
Leemck024 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This may be a "enemy of my enemy" tactic. The HMO has bought the threat that is being argued now, years ago. Doctors are screwed in their professions. If HMO's worked it would seem handling health care issues across the board would be tweaking them. Has anyone heard the name HMO called, or just insurance companies?
Reply
Something is needed where people can get at least basic care and the TAX CUT AND SPEND bunch still don't get it. -
-
100%
flyonthewallzz4 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With respect rbii:
Reply
I disagree for personal and pragmatic reasons.
I was a self-employed contractor for more than 20 years, and ran a small business.
There where many things that sliced into my competitive edge, and not being able to easily buy affordable health insurance was a big one.
I am now an employee.....yup I gave up!...but for a while I did kick some ass.
I often think of this Adam Smith quote:
According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to ... first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain...
The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
I think about this one a bit....I know that these words are not in the constitution, which I spend a bunch of time re-reading, but I think it fallls into the spirit of the thoughts of the founding fathers.
I find the "role of government" very interesting, and there is a ton of stuff I would rather they where not doing, that I have to pay for.
I would really like to play "cut the budget" with someone who is willing to trade realistically.
I figure it is about a 50/50 split over time of conservatives and liberals. We are just blogging jabberers. In order to really cut both of us would have to eat some sacred cows.
-
-
57%
FairNBalanced4 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.
Reply-
100%
Beau78904 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The House proposal includes a government-sponsored insurance plan, and the AMA endorsed it.
Reply
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1155ap_us_health...
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz4 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insur...
Reply
I think this is a very interesting encylopedia article about the history of Health insurance in this country.
I think it is well worth reading..and chock full of tid bits of information.
Like:
"The AMA had played a significant role in defeating proposals for nationalized health insurance in 1935 (under the Social Security Act) and later in defeating the proposed Murray-Wagner-Dingell (MWD) bill in 1949. The MWD bill would have provided comprehensive nationalized health insurance to all Americans. To ensure the defeat of the proposal, the AMA charged every physician who was a member $25 for their lobbying efforts."
or..
"The success of commercial companies was aided by two factors. First, the competitiveness of Blue Cross and Blue Shield was limited by the fact that their non-profit status required that they community rate their policies. Under a system of community rating, insurance companies charge the same premium to sicker people as they do to healthy people. Since they were not considered to be nonprofit organizations, commercial insurance companies were not required to community rate their policies. Instead, commercial insurance companies could engage in experience rating, whereby they charged sicker people higher premiums and healthier people lower premiums. As a result, commercial companies could often offer relatively healthy groups lower premiums than the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, and gain their business."
Looking at the history both sides can find valid arguments.
A conservative may choose this as a valid example of government intervention.
"Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits."
I think it is worth reading. -
-
-
100%
Beau78904 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The AMA knows something is going to happen to reduce healthcare costs, whether the House plan is adapted or not. They're betting this is the least hurtful to them of the alternatives.
Reply
The AMA doesn't want healthcare costs to be reduced by lowering payments to doctors, which would be the most likely and simplest alternative that would reduce overall costs. Also, under the public option included in H.R. 3200, doctors will be guaranteed to get paid (like they do by Medicare/Medicaid); they'll save money in administrative costs, and their fee schedule will be no less than that imposed on them by insurance companies.
-
-
33%
lloydm654 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I want a recorded vote by the doctors,because I don' believe it for one minute.No self respecting M D would go near this voter auction.Every young man /woman in med-school would be dropping out.Talk about scullduggery putting the this propganda forth should be a crime.
Reply-
100%
Beau78904 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do you say that? Do you believe the government will prevent doctors from being paid?
Reply
The government already pays doctors well for Medicare and Medicaid claims--payments are guaranteed (whereas some insurers deny claims and the individuals covered sometimes can't pay), and are made at the same prices private insurers allow. -
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive6 Replies
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.