They ain't listening to me
nor me to them, so it looks like dialogue
may be out of the question.

Who goes first trig? To listen.

I spent a good part of the day yesterday watching and listening to coverage on MSNBC which I think is a decent middle of the road news outlet, and I've been listening ever since Bill Clinton first took office in 92 and tried, but was defeated by the mega corporations, to institute some health care reform.
The facts are out there for EVERYONE to LISTEN to.

Trig, you came to read and you were honest. Thanks.

Decent people can differ on the complex subject of how to pay for health care. But when people are yelling self-refuting slogans like "Keep the government's hands off Medicare!" that's just a sign of ignorance and a monstrous sense of entitlement. Makes me wonder about the future of democracy in America.

I agree about the danger of the sloganeering and misinformation. Does this color every conversation we have with someone that is not "pro" health care reform? Can we paint them all with the same brush?

You're a good person for doing this post Denese. But here's the brush that I paint opponents of reform with; they don't care if uninsured people like me live or die. I take that personally, and it makes me less inclined to listen to them politely when they mouth their regurgitated slogans and lies and propaganda which are spoonfed to them by corporate interest, parasites, and thieves. I guess I'm not enlightened enough, or maybe I'm just a yahoo, but this isn't academic for me or for the 40% of US citizens who are non or under insured. And honestly, the majority of people who are against health care reform aren't interested in facts or civil discourse, and it amazes me that anyone observing what's going on could think so.

denese:

I think we are pretty much beyond dialogue as far as the general public is concerned. The mavens of "NO" have captured a good 1/3 of the electorate who want to scream, rant and disrupt. Another 1/3 to 1/2 are, like me, and are tired of the attempts by Obama and others to "compromise" since compromise in this case means appeasement. That does not leave many for "thoughtful" discussion.

Sides have hardened. Mine included, and I am not a far left ideologue, but really just a little left of center, and I am ready to fight on this thing. So I am an example of the hardening of positions. What I think has to be done is for Obama to say, like he did at his acceptance speech: "Enough!!" and do the parliamentary legerdemain necessary to pass it in the Senate with 51 votes.

I wish I were more sanguine about the public, and even about the alledged leaders. But no more.

Monte

RATED

Well I guess you're amazed at me Nana. I don't know about the "mobs" or "those opposed in general" but from what I hear, when I'm trying to listen is that people are afraid. I am FOR Obama's health insurance reform, and I wish there were a way to reach the scared people on the other side of the fence.

Thanks Monte for input while I'm deciding which road to take. You all maybe right. I'm afraid that the retrenchment will mean no health care reform at all.

Yes I am amazed at you Denese; that's what I meant. I'm amazed at you and anybody else who's concerned about the fears of people who don't want change. Their fears are unwarranted, and if they bothered finding out actual FACTS about the issue rather than listening to the lies they get from the fat cats who oppose reform, they'd know that. Are the anti-reform people concerned about the fears of people like myself who are uninsured and thus might die for lack of care if we got seriously ill? Are you? The fact that you chose to ignore most of my comment tells me not.

And your use of parentheses around "mobs" is hilarious. How would you characterize a lot of the disruptions at the town hall meetings if not mobs?

it seems that the chasm between the haves and have nots is too great to bridge. the haves are determined to believe the distortions no matter what any of the rest of us say.

it's sad and discouraging. i wish i knew the answer.

Nana: did you read my prior post? If you did you would know what my family has at stake in this, nothing less than my son and his partners' lives.

http://open.salon.com/blog/denese/2009/08/04/i_couldnt_help_myself_a_new_health_insurance_missive

So, because I have the identical fears you do, and had already written extensively about them, I thought that your post didn't require that I respond so that you knew I listened to your side AS YOUR SIDE IS MY SIDE. I'm sorry for that. I did listen and I am listening. It's EASY for me to listen to your side because we are in a similar place. I GET it. I am sorry.

The fact that you are so angry with me because I'm trying to figure out an approach that is not hate filled, so that we can come together on this explains a lot to me, not necessarily about you but about where we are on this issue as a country. You don't care what my opinion is, even if it's the same as your own, if I am willing to talk to the "other side" (there are many) to achieve it.

Friends of mine encountered one of those "mobs" in St. Louis. They were mostly middle class, white, middle aged people. They were taking pictures and calling themselves "the mob." What I choose to pay attention to are people I know that are good people that are not for this for whatever reason. I do not get them, but three of them are some of the best people I know.

That's about all I have to say except that there is an excellent Krugman post about the mobs (whoever they are): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The reason I didn't post this in my blog is because I think we have plenty of this side represented here.

denese

Denese: Thank you for this.

Health Insurance companies: They can go screw themselves.
Tort Reform: We NEED this, like ten years ago.
Malpractice Carriers: Fuck em, maybe if Dr's didn't have to pay $100,000+ every year to CYA, they wouldn't "practice on eggshells"

Bottom line is that the health care problem in this country has more than one aspect to it. We NEED reform, but this bill (alone) is akin to putting a bandaid on a gushing artery.

wow, i love that you're taking this approach, asking about listening, because it's key. i'm finding that i can't engage in any conversations on this topic because i fall apart. the cost for my late husband's health care wiped us out financially. we lost our house. we lost everything. then i lost him. so, for me, as for so freaking many others, this isn't theoretical, it's tragic reality. so when people start debating single payer versus this other or i see or read about one more Republican smear tactic, well, i'm not rational on this topic. so i just pray that we will have universal health care some time soon and i feel great despair.

listening? flw, etc. are so right. where there is HATE, listening goes out the window. the opposition is all about the MONEY. so if there is some way to show that giving healthcare to everyone would mean money for some of them, lower their health care costs, for one, that, to me, would be the way to approach those who oppose this. you have to talk to people in the language in which they communicate. the whole neurolinguistic programming thing. if someone talks adn thinks money, then find a way to talk in monetary terms. if someone talks fear... well, you get the idea. love love love and huge gratitude for being such a lovely voice of reason on this topic. you, i can hear.

Denese, I have the utmost respect for your position here. People stop hearing when everybody is shouting. I think when we have a debate as devisive as this one is, we need to find the common ground and go from there - together. Nobody wants people to live without access to health care, I'm sure. It all boils down, like you say, to fear. Until we address the fear we're not going to get anywhere.

i meant for the opposition to see that their corporate health care costs would be LESS. i hate this position that nana and others are taking that there is no need to understand people on the other side. it's crucial to understand them and, as i said, the language that they speak, in order to defuse their message to their people.

and nana doesn't hate you. he's amazed by you being able to and want to see both sides. he's unable to do that, which is why i stopped reading his posts, well, in addition to other things. i can almost always see someone else's side, for some reason. i can hate it but i can see it. when people are afraid, you have to address their fears head on and show them a cost-benefit analysis of sorts. how we all benefit from people getting preventative health care, how that brings down costs, and the benefit to society of people not being wiped out my health care costs, of people being productive citizens. this is not my THANG. but professional negotiators can always see both side adn respect both sides. shuttin gup now.

That was meant to be divisive, not devisive. I could pretend that's how we spell it here in Australia but I doubt that would fly.

Okay everyone, take in a deep breath, hold it..........now exhale ...ahhhhh. Doesn't that feel better?
Trust me, I read Denese's post from yesterday. It is long, but it is long because it's thorough. She explained it all to her friend like Rachel Maddow talking points. She is one of us. No need to go after her. We are all a bit upset right now. We are all on the same page here. Remember calm minds win battles.
I too, would like to see some sort of dialogue between the sides. Personally, I like to try to figure the motivations of the opposing side. What makes them tick? What is it they care about? If you want to do battle, it's best to know your enemy as well as you know yourself. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Now I could be completely wrong about this, but here are some thing I've observed about the other side.

One: Many of them aren't the brightest members of our society regardless of what they want you to think, but I have some friends that are also Republicans and for the most part they are not only intelligent, but are wonderful people to boot. Just no point in talking politics with them and that includes health care, but that's another story. Some have mentioned that GWB was the biggest mistake they've ever made , so at least that is a small victory. Many of them have insurance, though they don't realize that they are still vulnerable.

Two: Many of them have been on the government dole for most of their adult lives. Some have lifetime military careers, or they're cops or work for the government in one form or another. They have taken a safe route in their lives and can't possibly understand why someone would open a business or take a "crazy" risk with there lives like say, move to another town. They play it save and follow a life map that someone else has provided for them. Do this for thirty years and retire. These can be the same people that rail against big government, never realizing that without big government, they wouldn't have it so cushy. Liberals are risk takers if nothing else. Most of the right side just don't get that at all.

Three: The simple fact is the other side is scared out of their pants and for a number of reasons. Why are they so scared? Well, first, they are afraid of change. They've all worked so hard (like WE haven't) and they think that someone is trying to take something away from them. Any rocking of the boat and they instantly want to mutiny. Being the type of person that always plays it safe, they overreact long before ever thinking things through. If it is change, regardless of whether that change is to their benefit or not, they want no part of it. Change is scary. Change is evil. These are the people that follow every rule. Never question authority. Ever. They are sheep. We all have them for friends and neighbors. Don't try to tell me you don't.
So why are they so scared? Because they listen to their leaders. Their leaders are the moral compass of the country in their eyes. They are conditioned to think this way and when their representatives in Congress start spewing lies in the name of politics, they swallow it all, hook, line and sinker. And when they are told to lash out against the evil liberals, they do it without any thought. When they hear that HC reform will not treat the elderly, they believe it. People in the nursing homes are scared shitless right now. They are sheep. They simply believe everything Rush Limbaugh says and everything the National Enquirer writes.
Sure their are many racist in their party. Their are racists in your party, too. That's a totally other subject. Those people are just plain evil.
These folks that I'm talking about are losing ground by the handful and they can't understand why their ship is sinking. Their leaders are failing them in every way possible so their boat is rocking something awful, but they just can't bring themselves to see that it's their own leaders that are causing it so they lash out at what their leaders tell them to. Reform of any kind is the big evil.

Now, do I actually believe that any dialogue is possible? Sure I do. There are town hall meetings going on all over the country that aren't being disrupted by right wing zealots so, dialogue is happening as we speak. It just doesn't get reported by the main stream media. That's a boring story and doesn't get ratings or sell print. So there IS dialogue going on and maybe some people can be swayed, maybe not. It doesn't matter.

It really doesn't matter because we are going to get health care reform, one way or the other and I believe that there WILL be a public option when it does get passed. The Republican leadership has showed all of their cards and all those cards say no.
Obama knows this and I believe Congress will pass a bill even without the bluedogs with 51 votes if they have to. It's just too important to let fail.
Obama may be young, but I think he has the sharpest mind and has the best political instincts of anyone alive today. He will and has given the GOP plenty of rope to hang themselves. He didn't become the first black president by being stupid. The economy is showing signs of improvement. That is a huge plus, regardless of how the right spins it.
We will win this battle, because we have the facts and intelligence on our side. Be passionate and proactive, but be smart.

Now, let's all have a group hug and get back to work.

I just have to say that I maybe in love with Michael Rogers. Thanks for sticking up for me.

Thanks Theo, Nathalie and LadyMiko. I truly think we're all in this together and what is best for all is best for us individually. The problem is how to get that across, when big insurance and pharma is financing the onslaught.

xoxox

denese

MR , I agree with your points. So how do you explain it to the one who ACTUALLY sincerely believe that healthcare is not a human rights issue. That some people actually deserve to be without a support system?

Traveller1:

IMO, I think you can ask why and sometimes you can reason with someone based on talking about their reasoning.

But at that point you can also disagree.

denese

Denese and all,
This is such an interesting discussion. The issue of how to de-polarize a situation has me befuddled. I was in line with a large number of the conservative activists for a town hall meeting recently in St. Louis who seemed to be happy to be calling themselves the "mob". We tried to talk with the people behind us but they were so aggressive and "in your face" that it was quite impossible to talk and certainly there was no place for an open dialogue. I've wondered what we could have done to connect with them, other than agreeing with them, but just don't come up with anything.

I've finally decided that the only thing I can do is what Gandhi says "if you want to change the world, change yourself." So I take it as a practice to work on being open to everyone I meet (have to say the aggressive conservatives were very hard to be open to) with the hope that as my own issues of resistance and subtle desire to squash the ideas that I don't like dissolve in me and transform into compassion for everyone, then I will have done what I can.

I agree with Denese that it is fear that's driving a lot of the "mob" mentality but we can't take people's fear away from them. Even if someone could address all their fears, it's not likely that they would be free of fear. And I do agree with someone here who said that it's fear of change, and also fear of losing their quality of life, fear of the "other" (which could be people of color, or liberals, or anyone different), fear of dying, fear of being poor and on the street. So I guess if we can kind of get into what they are feeling, then perhaps we can approach it all with compassion and if everyone suddenly had compassion, then maybe fears would be dissipated.....and maybe the issue would become de-polarized. But that's probably just wishful thinking!

Thanks for listening!
Carolyn

Awww. Thanks Carolyn (Kalyani) for commenting. She's one of my wise friends.

There is a huge amount of misinformation floating around about the proposed health care plan. There is also a huge amount of money that will be made, transferred, or taken away from the main players - health insurance companies and healthcare providers. This combo of misinfo and megabucks is causing so much static that no one can "hear" each other.

interesting Denese... Mike I'm quite impressed with your level headed diplomatic discourse. I've taken a pretty hard line and said some possibly harsh things on others blogs and on my own blog from last night, but dammit sometimes, most or even all of the time, it feels like trying to communicate with a bowling ball.
It does come down to (like Mike said so adeptly) I believe, the conservatives who have "played the game" and taken the safe road who HAVE freaking insurance against the free thinking liberals (and I hate that word, liberal, although I suppose I would have to classify myself there), many of which have taken chances, started their own businesses or whatever and find themselves priced out of the health care market.
Health care insurance for us simply unaffordable therefore myself and my son who is full of promise have none. NONE. We've fallen through the cracks of the present system. Wait, there is no system.
So in summation Denese... and yes I realize what side of this debate you are on, having read your post you alluded to which was quite well done, sigh... I still don't see a way to communicate. I have tried and once again there is just no way I see to get a point across to people that are that scared/closed minded or whatever their hangup is.
Peace and love. I will always survive (until I die that is) and it's not so much myself that I worry for. I worry for this country that I used to love but anymore... notsomuch....

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

Sorry forgot the link

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200

Denise,

Let me talk about a few things here if I may.

Some people listen. I've said many times the reason I'm here is because I don't agree with most of what is written here. If I wanted to hear myself think, there are lots of places to go.

I call myself part of the “mob”. I do it as a joke to the news people who were trying to put their spin on the town hall meetings. The thing is they are so blinded by their version of what they want to see, they can't see we are making fun of them by calling ourselves the “mob”.

Trig talks about how the liberals take chances and starting businesses. I don't see that as a liberal or conservative issue of who is taking the chances. He does try to make the point about starting a business and being priced out of health insurance. I've been self employed for years and have always had health insurance, both in the restaurant and trucking business. When I decide if I can do a business I put my health care cost in the start up projections. If my projections don't cover health care, then I don't start the business. Being self employed is a great thing, but you have to make the decision that you need health insurance and if you can't afford to play for it, then you need to work for someone else.

What scares me about the health care bill (HR 3200) is section 102.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) Limitation on changes in terms or conditions - Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as the day before the first day of Y1.

As I start, buy, sale and operate businesses I change health insurance plans. With this section I will not be able to. I will have to use the public option if I need to make a change.

This bill has nothing to do with hate, or fear of people or anything else. All it has to do with is do you want the government involved in the way you live your life. I don't. I want to make decisions for me and my family. If I chose to have health insurance that is up to me. If I chose to have it then I have to make the decision do what I need to do to get it, be it work another job, change job to where I can get the benefit, or not be self employed. The choice is yours and the responsibility to do what is required to get it is also yours.

There are many "adults" out there but not so many "grown ups". Grown ups can talk about anything, agreement or not. But adults...too many are big people who think like a stubborn teenager and this is what makes the conversation so difficult. I watched the news of screaming adults in the latest town hall meeting...I was stunned even though I wasn't surprised. Perhaps each town hall meeting should hire a professional mediator to help negotiate the discussion.

Agitprop (agitation propaganda) is by necessity directed at the least intelligent in a society. Lenin knew this, so did Hitler...and so does Frank Luntz.
You can paint the ironically collectivist drones as the same, because they are. But the real point is the propaganda is used to paint ALL of the differing opinions one finds among the educated as one color.
As ol' Adolph said :
"It is part of a great leader’s genius to make even widely separated adversaries appear as if they belonged to but one category, because among weakly and undecided characters the recognition of various enemies all too easily marks the beginning of doubt of one’s own rightness."
The Republican Party has, at long last...no shame.

There is zero use in trying to appeal to an ideologue.

Denese - you have started an excellent dialogue here. In fact, it's so reasonable I wouldn't mind seeing more input from those who blatantly disagree with reform so I can get where they're coming from, or if not "get" it, at least find some talking/arguing points. And Nate and you don't disagree; there's just a lot of frustration in your voices as the need for a solution is so obvious, and the path and the timing is not. I'll be back - don't know enough about the proposals to offer much now. Thanks for opening the discussion.

I've been having a very extensive and difficult conversation via e-mail with my college roommate. The problem is she has a few valid concerns buried under a ton of misinformation and exaggeration, dosed with a bucket of fear. She has some very unusual health issues and is terrified of being priced out of specialized care. I have concerns too but I'm not nearly as frightened as she is. That means it's on me to address her fears while also deflating (if possible; I'm not going to change her) the false impressions she has. She really doesn't want change. She believes the public option will lead quickly to a single-payer system. This puts the onus on me to point out that providing a public option to those without ANY health coverage will be cost-effective and does not equal (and does not HAVE to equal and may NEVER equal) "forcing" everyone into a single-payer system. It's more challenging (and more exhausting) to come up with the numbers that show that people without insurance who use emergency rooms in place of office visits are becoming a significant financial drain on the system, for example, but I try. I also try to correct the insane, Orwellian visions she has of blacked-robed panels decided who gets health care and who doesn't (as if, btw, insurance companies don't do that now). It's hard but I'm trying...

I will get back to you all tonight. We are leaving now to ferry infant paraphernalia to our son -- we are expecting a new grandchild next week.

denese

Nope, there is not talking to the nuts . They are like trying to approach an obnoxious drunk. Waste of time.

CatnLion -- You are the one I think that we need to address because you were bold enough to venture onto this blog and state your opinions, which are opposed to Obama’s health care reform. You seem like a pretty savvy business person and a very no-nonsense person.

So, can we dialogue?

I have a few questions for you, stated below.

Let's start with your basic opposition to the Obama health care plan, which is that although present insurance policies are grandfathered in, if someone wants to buy a new policy they will be required to buy a "government policy.”

First, from what I read in the bill, current policies are grandfathered but with certain stipulations which are that 1) they can't enroll any other individuals in that policy, 2) they can't change the terms of that policy, and 3) they can't raise the rates of certain (e.g. sicker) folks without changing the rates of everyone in the same risk group.

Do you know why this was written?

This was written because health insurance companies have canceled polices and steeply (read inhumanely) increased premiums for sick people. Let me make this real for you. I have a very good friend that is an author, and a respected one I might add. He makes money, which is why he decided to stop being a professor and go the writing route. He and his wife have had the same private insurance policy for years, never wavered, always paid, and for years never utilized it. However, his wife got ovarian cancer and has had a couple of rounds of chemo, and at this point in time their premiums are approximately $20,000 a year. Needless to say, they struggle financially, not to mention worry incessantly that her insurance will be canceled. Do not doubt that policies have been canceled for little or no reason (it happened to me when a very expensive policy was canceled because the insurer "pulled out of" the market in WA state). Worry upon worry upon worry. Seems like something that needs to be addressed to me.

What do you think? What is your gut reaction to such practices and policies that are engaged in by insurance companies? Honestly, please let me know.

It seems to me that this is why we purchase insurance policies – to be “insured.” Healthy people pay into the policy and basically subsidize folks that are sick. Many of these sick folks were healthy for years and years, which may mean that they were healthy when they were young and no longer are as they age. On the other hand, many healthy people are healthy their whole lives. Many sick people are sick their whole lives. It’s insurance. We are happy when we don’t have to use it but are happy when we have it when a crisis happens. Right?

You mention the "free market" and how it will, on its own, without government intervention, produce the best products because people will "choose" the best policies thereby eliminating the rest.

The problem with the "free market" in this context is that there is no way that these lovely people I mention can "choose" another policy to “compete” with or to replace this one because if they dropped their current policy, my friend's wife would never be insurable again. Ever. She also wouldn’t survive.

This is just one example of how insurance companies have preyed on people with no choices, which has created this health care crisis to begin with.

Please let me know if you understand this, or agree or disagree with it? If you disagree with it, give me a few alternatives, please…

You also say that if people want to buy another policy they will have to buy a government policy, and you don't want your “choice” to be limited as a business person that buys businesses and policies regularly. You speak as though this "government policy" will be one and only one policy and that this will eventually result in us all having "THE one and only government insurance."

In my humble opinion, I don't think so. I think that if you read the bill and interpretations of it, you will find that you will be able to choose between various policies but you will be required to buy a "government sanctioned policy." All that means is that insurance companies can’t sell policies that do not deliver on the basics. We all know that unsuspecting and not very sophisticated people have been duped in other industries in the past (e.g. banking, think of RESPA regulations) which is why they are regulated. Seems simple to me. Insurance companies have pulled the wool over people’s eyes also, offering very limited coverage, very high deductibles, low caps, etc. and either that coverage has not been understandable by those who have purchased it OR it was the only policy that they could afford (poor S.O.B.s as my father would say). These same people are the ones that have gone bankrupt even though they have had insurance (empirically, a growing trend). SO, Obama’s bill means that the policies that are offered will have to cover certain basics, be renewable, have level premiums (or thereabouts), and have certain deductibles. They can be Cadillac policies or Ford policies.

You will still have options on what to buy for your companies, just like other companies will. The playing field will be level. You and other business folk will have the same options, which will cost the same. If these cost more, you will probably pass on some of this extra cost to the purchasers of your goods or services. That’s what businesses do, right?

So, what is the problem with this if it allows nearly 50MM people to have insurance? Please explain. What sort of major problem is this for you if you can do some good for your fellow humans?

Please don’t tell me that your decisions are based on “ideology.” Think about the legions of people that are impacted now.

Let me give you a very personal example: My son and his intended have had very serious preexisting conditions since birth. They are both on their parents’ insurance policies which they need to survive. They would like to marry but that is not in the cards because they would be dropped by their parents’ policies (as a conservative I would be aghast that such a thing existed that would impede the institution of marriage). They can be on our policies until they are 24 IF they go to school. They are in MBA programs. They will be dropped in a few months as they will graduate in December, and if they don’t, in 3 months after that, they will turn 24, and will be dropped from our insurance policy. They are uninsurable by private policies – they have preexisting conditions after all. I know about COBRA and we will pay for it if they can’t find jobs. What happens after that for them if they can’t find employment with an employer with a group health policy? What if in this economy they can’t find such employment? By the way, they are NOT above getting work at Walmart. So, they could do that not that that would pay the bills. But, what if they got so sick so that they couldn’t work? Then what? Who will insure them then?
What do you think about this situation? How could this be remedied with “no government intervention?” And why would you argue against government intervention in cases like this?

Lastly,

What do you think your responsibility is to your fellow humans?

These are the things I’d like to know. Thank you in advance.

Denese

PS -- Do you realize that today big Pharma is now supporting Obama's health care plan? The AMA has already backed the plan. This says so much to me. I know that in this quagmire, this is ultimately in their best interest.

damn denese you spent what, about an hour on that summation. I'm thoroughly impressed! (if it was me it would have taken an hour, for you might have been 5 minutes) sorry about the soon to be 24 year olds: (
and that dropping coverage at a moments notice for any or no reason is just immoral.
I'm so tired tonight... all this HC stuff is dragging away energy I should be using for something else, but this is important damnet.

I'm investing the time because I want to hear the answers. I truly want to know.

Yes, I spent a great deal of time. Long day also.

Get some rest.

xoxo

denese

I need to say, though it may clash with some things I said in my comments yesterday, that dialogue would be a great thing. The more screaming there is, the less actual communication takes place; that's a bad thing. The whole thing's getting out of hand as far as I'm concerned, and I applaud any effort, such as the one you've made with this post, to discuss the issue in a rational manner.

Nana,

You can comment and clash all you want. I am clashing right now. You should SEE me. Just a big clashing mess.

d

D, Seems to me that the people who protest are mostly those who are
1) afraid of change
2) feel comfortable where they are and fear someone will take it away

and thus interpret the bill the way they fear. "Fear" being the key word that the vested interests who want to maintain status quo use to fire their agenda up. Thus people vote against their own interests. I have even used the line.... "Why NOT try something new?" Whats the worst that can happen? That we change back if we fall off the cliff? "That frightens even more.

See above. You said I can disagaree. I do. But that does not change anything

Traveller1,

I don't have a magic formula for changing minds. I do feel like there is something to be had with really listening, if that's possible.

d

Denese, this is such a REAL discussion and so important, with so many points of view represented, I'm going to link it to my Facebook account. I don't have a ton of friends but I do have lots of friends who will be interested.

Hi JK Brady;

I removed CatnLion's comment so that he could re-post it with some formatting. It was difficult to read. Once he re-posts, people can see what you are responding to..

Sorry for the confusion.

denese

Let me take this opportunity to tout my post of last night, which looks at this whole 'debate' business in a different way.

http://open.salon.com/blog/myriad/2009/08/09/the_health_care_debate_as_viewed_thru_the_chakras

But then let me depart from my cool & collected observations in that post (which I can indulge in, since I live comfortably under universal single-payer non-profit health care here in Canada, which has been operating quite satisfactorily for the last half century), and say how can one be open to and have dialogue with people who talk about "death panels"? I see Palin is now calling for "civil discourse", but manages to get in "outrageous" and (SHE thinks it's a horrible term) "nationalized health service". It's comparable to the birthers (BTW the Death Panel people are now being referred to as "deathers") who keep demanding Obama produce his birth certificate ... as if he hasn't. As Trig said, it's like talking to a bowling ball. Or perhaps to a cartoon bomb - a bowling ball that's likely to go off on you.

Catnlion - not to be snarky (okay, maybe a little snarky - I can't help myself), but if you don't want the government interfering in your life, do you drive on private roads, have private fire and police services (mediated by for-profit insurance companies), contribute to a private army for national security, etc. etc.? For many people, the vital life-and-death matters of health care are now in the same league as

WHEN THE COST OF SOMETHING IS FREE THE USAGE IS ENDLESS

TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLE I JUST ADDED MY COMMENTS INTO YOUR STATEMENT. TO KEEP THEM SIMPLE I PUT THEM IN CAPS SO YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE. I'M NOT YELLING AT ANYONE.

CatnLion -- You are the one I think that we need to address because you were bold enough to venture onto this blog and state your opinions, which are opposed to Obama’s health care reform. You seem like a pretty savvy business person and a very no-nonsense person. 

So, can we dialogue? 

I have a few questions for you, stated below.

Let's start with your basic opposition to the Obama health care plan, which is that although present insurance policies are grandfathered in, if someone wants to buy a new policy they will be required to buy a "government policy.”

First, from what I read in the bill, current policies are grandfathered but with certain stipulations which are that 1) they can't enroll any other individuals in that policy, 2) they can't change the terms of that policy, and 3) they can't raise the rates of certain (e.g. sicker) folks without changing the rates of everyone in the same risk group. 

Do you know why this was written?

This was written because health insurance companies have canceled polices and steeply (read inhumanely) increased premiums for sick people. Let me make this real for you. I have a very good friend that is an author, and a respected one I might add. He makes money, which is why he decided to stop being a professor and go the writing route. He and his wife have had the same private insurance policy for years, never wavered, always paid, and for years never utilized it. However, his wife got ovarian cancer and has had a couple of rounds of chemo, and at this point in time their premiums are approximately $20,000 a year. Needless to say, they struggle financially, not to mention worry incessantly that her insurance will be canceled. Do not doubt that policies have been canceled for little or no reason (it happened to me when a very expensive policy was canceled because the insurer "pulled out of" the market in WA state). Worry upon worry upon worry. Seems like something that needs to be addressed to me.

What do you think? What is your gut reaction to such practices and policies that are engaged in by insurance companies? Honestly, please let me know. 

THERE ARE SOME COMPANIES THAT WILL DO CRAPPY THINGS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN LEGISLATE PEOPLE TO ACT CORRECTLY. LOOK AT ALL THE LAWS THAT GET BROKEN EVERY DAY.

ONE THING THAT IS NOT REALLY TAUGHT IN SCHOOL IS LIFE ISSUES SUCH AS BUDGETS, WRITING CHECKS, CREDIT CARDS OR INSURANCE INCLUDING HEALTH INSURANCE. FOR SOMEONE THAT NEVER USES INSURANCE I WOULD START WITH A “HSA”. IF YOU HAVE, SAY A $5000 DEDUCTIBLE “HSA” (SORRY FOR THE QUOTES, WORD PROCESSOR WANTS TO AUTO CORRECT) WHEN THEY GOT TO THEIR LIMIT EVERYTHING AFTER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED 100%.

I DO FEEL SORRY FOR PEOPLE WHO LOSE EVERYTHING DUE TO HEALTH CARE. MOST PEOPLE WHO GO BK IS BECAUSE OF MEDICAL BILLS.

ONE THING I FIND INTERESTING IN THE DEBATE IS YOU HAVE HEARD PRESIDENT OBAMA TALK ABOUT HIS MOTHER'S WORRIES. SHE HAD A SON WHO IS AN IVY LEAGUE LAWYER AND HE DIDN'T STEP IN AND TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS? I KNOW WHEN MY MOTHER GOT COLON CANCER I MOVED FROM AZ TO VA TO HELP HER OUT.

It seems to me that this is why we purchase insurance policies – to be “insured.” Healthy people pay into the policy and basically subsidize folks that are sick. Many of these sick folks were healthy for years and years, which may mean that they were healthy when they were young and no longer are as they age. On the other hand, many healthy people are healthy their whole lives. Many sick people are sick their whole lives. It’s insurance. We are happy when we don’t have to use it but are happy when we have it when a crisis happens. Right? 

THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR, TO PROTECT US WHEN SOMETHING GOES WRONG. I WORKED FOR AN ACTUARY FOR AWHILE AS AN ACCOUNTANT. I DID THE GAPP ACCOUNTING SO I'M NOT TOTALLY INTO THE TABLES, BUT HE WOULD TELL YOU WHAT YOUR ODDS ARE OF DOING JUST ABOUT ANYTHING. THE POOLS OF PEOPLE WERE, IT'S BEEN AWHILE, DESIGNED TO HAVE NEW PEOPLE, WHO ARE GOOD RISKS, JOIN AS OLDER MEMBERS GET SICK, DIE OR DROP OUT. IT SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE RISK FOR THE POOL EVEN ACROSS THE YEARS.


You mention the "free market" and how it will, on its own, without government intervention, produce the best products because people will "choose" the best policies thereby eliminating the rest. 

The problem with the "free market" in this context is that there is no way that these lovely people I mention can "choose" another policy to “compete” with or to replace this one because if they dropped their current policy, my friend's wife would never be insurable again. Ever. She also wouldn’t survive.

This is just one example of how insurance companies have preyed on people with no choices, which has created this health care crisis to begin with. 

Please let me know if you understand this, or agree or disagree with it? If you disagree with it, give me a few alternatives, please…

You also say that if people want to buy another policy they will have to buy a government policy, and you don't want your “choice” to be limited as a business person that buys businesses and policies regularly. You speak as though this "government policy" will be one and only one policy and that this will eventually result in us all having "THE one and only government insurance." 

HERE IS ONE ARE WE CAN AGREE ON THAT NEEDS SOME REFORM. FIRST, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRAVEL ACROSS STATE LINES TO BUY YOUR INSURANCE. NOW YOU CAN'T. THAT WOULD GIVE THEM A GREATER NUMBER OF COMPANIES TO BUY FROM. SECOND, SOME SORT OF ASSIGNMENT, LIKE THEY HAVE FOR CAR INSURANCE, WOULD BE HELPFUL. NOW IF YOU HAVE REALLY SCREWED UP AND CAN'T GET INSURANCE FOR YOUR CAR THE STATES HAVE PLANS IN PLACE WHERE THEY TELL INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO IS GOING TO INSURE YOU. THEREFORE THERE IS NO UNINSURED BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SICK.

FINALLY, LET'S SAY MY WIFE GETS SICK, AND SHE IS. SHE HAS HAD HER NECKED FUSED TWICE, 2 KNEE SURGERIES, NEEDS KNEE REPLACEMENT AND YEARS AGO, BEFORE WE MET, YOU BROTHER CALLED FOR HER TO COME OVER THEY USED A SHOTGUN ON HIMSELF SO SHE FOUND HIM. DRUNK FOR SEVERAL YEARS. C&S FOR 8 YEARS NOW, BUT.........

ANYWAY, IF WE WERE IN A POSITION WHERE WE COULDN'T GET INSURANCE, I WOULD FIND A JOB WITH HEALTH BENEFITS AND CHANGE JOBS SO I CAN JOIN THE PLAN WHEN I'M FIRST ABLE SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ME, WITH WHAT EVER CONDITIONS WE HAVE, AND THEY ARE MANY. BUT THAT'S ME DOING WHAT I NEED TO DO TO GET THE INSURANCE I WANT. BTW, YOU SON OR DAUGHTER GOES TO WORK AT WALMART, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET INSURANCE AND GRANDFATHERED FOR THEIR CONDITIONS. MY DIL, WHO HAS A CHILD WITH HEART PROBLEMS, IS UNDER THE WAL MART INSURANCE PLAN.

In my humble opinion, I don't think so. I think that if you read the bill and interpretations of it, you will find that you will be able to choose between various policies but you will be required to buy a "government sanctioned policy." All that means is that insurance companies can’t sell policies that do not deliver on the basics. We all know that unsuspecting and not very sophisticated people have been duped in other industries in the past (e.g. banking, think of RESPA regulations) which is why they are regulated. Seems simple to me. Insurance companies have pulled the wool over people’s eyes also, offering very limited coverage, very high deductibles, low caps, etc. and either that coverage has not been understandable by those who have purchased it OR it was the only policy that they could afford (poor S.O.B.s as my father would say). These same people are the ones that have gone bankrupt even though they have had insurance (empirically, a growing trend). SO, Obama’s bill means that the policies that are offered will have to cover certain basics, be renewable, have level premiums (or thereabouts), and have certain deductibles. They can be Cadillac policies or Ford policies.

THE WAY I READ THE BILL THERE IS ONLY ONE PUBLIC OPTION. YES, ALL THE OTHERS HAVE TO OFFER THE BASICS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING, BUT THEY ARE PRIVATE AND CAN GO WHERE EVER I WANT TO PAY FOR IT TO GO, BUT NOT LOWER THEN THE STANDARD. FOR EXAMPLE I ONCE HAD A POLICY THAT HAD SURGICAL BENEFITS. GREAT, AS LONG AS THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PUT YOU TO SLEEP. GUESS WHAT WAS NOT IN THE PLAN. YES, I MISSED THAT ONE.

INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE HIGHLY REGULATED, BUT AT THE STATE LEVEL. YOU COULD DO THIS NOW WITHOUT A GIANT FEDERAL PLAN. I WAS IN A STATE WITH A WORK POLICY ISSUED IN THE STATE WHERE THE COMPANY OFFICES WERE. THE PLAN EXCLUDED ADHD. STATE LAW SAID THE PLAN HAD TO INCLUDE ADHD. I HAVE AN ADHD SON WHO NEEDED MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR HIS ADHD. ONE PHONE CALL TO THE ADJUSTER IS ALL IT TOOK AND THE BILLS WERE PAID.

GUESS WHO IS EXEMPT FROM ALL OF THIS. RIGHT, CONGRESS. IF WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS SO GREAT WHY DID CONGRESS WRITE AN EXEMPTION FOR THEMSELVES? ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN HAS INTODUCED AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE ALL OF CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE USE THE PUBLIC OPTION.

WHEN THEY SAY THEY HAVE THE SAME CHOICES WE DO, TO KEEP THEIR CURRENT PLAN OR NOT, THEY ARE BLOWING SMOKE UP YOUR SKIRT. YES IT'S THE SAME RIGHT UP UNTIL THEY HIT A TRIGGER. THEN THINGS BECOME UNEQUAL. THEY CAN DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT NOT WHAT THE LAW FORCES US TO DO. JUST MORE SPIN ON THEIR PART.

You will still have options on what to buy for your companies, just like other companies will. The playing field will be level. You and other business folk will have the same options, which will cost the same. If these cost more, you will probably pass on some of this extra cost to the purchasers of your goods or services. That’s what businesses do, right?

So, what is the problem with this if it allows nearly 50MM people to have insurance? Please explain. What sort of major problem is this for you if you can do some good for your fellow humans? 

AS A COUNTRY WE GIVE LOTS TO CHARITY. WE DO IT BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO, NOT BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD WE HAVE TO.

THERE ARE GROUPS OF PEOPLE WE MUST HELP. YOU LOSE YOUR JOB, YOU'RE NOT IT. YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD A SAFETY NET IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. YOU DON'T WANT TO WORK, SORRY. YOU ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, NOPE.

THERE ARE ALSO A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THEY COME UP WITH THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED. YOU CHANGE JOBS AND YOUR INSURANCE LAPSED FOR ONE DAY, YOU ARE IN THE NUMBER. YOU DON'T WANT INSURANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE YOUNG AND DUMB, YOU ARE IN THE NUMBER, AND ON AND ON. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY ARE LIKE YOUR FRIEND ABOVE WHO CAN'T GET INSURANCE AT ALL.

Please don’t tell me that your decisions are based on “ideology.” Think about the legions of people that are impacted now. 

Let me give you a very personal example: My son and his intended have had very serious preexisting conditions since birth. They are both on their parents’ insurance policies which they need to survive. They would like to marry but that is not in the cards because they would be dropped by their parents’ policies (as a conservative I would be aghast that such a thing existed that would impede the institution of marriage). They can be on our policies until they are 24 IF they go to school. They are in MBA programs. They will be dropped in a few months as they will graduate in December, and if they don’t, in 3 months after that, they will turn 24, and will be dropped from our insurance policy. They are uninsurable by private policies – they have preexisting conditions after all. I know about COBRA and we will pay for it if they can’t find jobs. What happens after that for them if they can’t find employment with an employer with a group health policy? What if in this economy they can’t find such employment? By the way, they are NOT above getting work at Walmart. So, they could do that not that that would pay the bills. But, what if they got so sick so that they couldn’t work? Then what? Who will insure them then? 
What do you think about this situation? How could this be remedied with “no government intervention?” And why would you argue against government intervention in cases like this?

SINCE I READ THIS EARLIER, I THINK I ANSWERED THIS EARLIER.

Lastly, 

What do you think your responsibility is to your fellow humans? 

THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE I WANT AND CAN TAKE IT. I DO NOT THINK THAT, EXCEPT IN LIMITED CASES, THE GOVERNMENT HAS ANY BUSINESS IN MAKING SURE THOSE WHO WON'T ARE TAKEN CARE OF.

These are the things I’d like to know. Thank you in advance.

Denese

PS -- Do you realize that today big Pharma is now supporting Obama's health care plan? The AMA has already backed the plan. This says so much to me. I know that in this quagmire, this is ultimately in their best interest.


ONE OF THE THINGS WE DIDN'T TOUCH ON IS THE COST. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IS SO LARGE THAT MOST PEOPLE CAN'T PROCESS THE NUMBER. BUT, THEY HAVE A PLAN TO GET IT. LET'S SKIP TAXES, THAT'S ANOTHER DEBATE. THEY SAY THEY ARE GOING TO GET THE MAJORITY OF IT FROM SAVING. THEY ALSO SAY THEY ARE GOING TO FIX MEDICARE.

THAT BEGS TWO QUESTIONS. IT WAS A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, THEY DID NOTHING. FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS IT IS A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING. SO WHY DO THEY THINK THEY CAN FIX IT NOW? IF YOU CAN GET THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS, THEN DO IT, FIX IT, SHOW ME THE MONEY THEN I'LL GIVE YOU MAJOR CONSIDERATION. THE FACT IS I CAN'T NAME A GOVERNMENT OPERATION THAT DOESN'T NEED FIXING.

AT ONE OF THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS SOMEBODY TOOK ON A CONGRESSMAN WHO THOUGH THE VA WAS A GOOD OPERATION. I GO THERE. I USE THE POST OFFICE. AMTRACK HAS NEVER MADE THE FIRST DIME. CASH 4 CLUNKERS IS JUNK. LOOK AT HOW CLOSE THEIR NUMBER WAS FOR THE MONEY THAT PROGRAM WOULD NEED.

THIS PROGRAM IS VERY BIG. IT'S EXPENSIVE. IT'S VAGUE. MOST OF THE RULES AND PROGRAMS WILL BE CREATED AT THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL AND NOT BY LAW. WE ALREADY HAVE SEVERAL NATIONWIDE MEDICAL PROGRAMS. WHY NOT JUST INCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE IN MEDICARE, MEDICAID, THE VA OR IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH THAT IS SET UP FOR NATIVE AMERICANS? WHY CREATE A BRAND NEW ONE INSTEAD OF CREATING A WHOLE BRAND NEW SYSTEM. THE OTHERS ALREADY HAVE RULES, REGS, STAFF ETC. THEY SHOULD BE READY TO GO TOMORROW.

LASTLY, IF YOU MAKE MEDICAL AVAILABLE TO 50MM PEOPLE NEXT MONTH, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TO TAKE CARE OF THEM. IN FACT THIS “EMERGENCY” THAT HAS TO BE SOLVED BY THE AUGUST RECESS IS BEING “FIXED” BY A BILL THAT WON'T HELP ANYONE FOR 5 YEARS. EVEN WITH THAT LEAD TIME YOU CAN'T TRAIN ENOUGH DOCTORS TO CARE FOR THEM.

YOUR TURN.

"When the cost of something is free the usage is endless."

I'd like to know if Canadians go to the doctor for things like hangnails.

I have really good insurance. It's practically free for me to go to the doctor (fortunately, a $15 is not a big deal to me). Does this mean that I go to the doctor all the time? Of course not! There are a million things I'd rather do than go to the doctor. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that I'm probably pretty typical in that respect.

I've been both fortunate and healthy. I go to the doctor once a year, have my eyes checked once a year, and go to the dentist twice a year.

I agree with CatnLion. We are going to end up with another massive government program similar to Medicare and Medicaid(Both of them going broke) and a long list of unintended consequences, as usually happens with any government program.

Yes, we need change. We just don't need the kind that the current government is forcing on us.

JK Brady,

Let's take a look at a couple of your points.

“Basic Economics teaches us that supply and demand should eventually find a balance as should the prices charged for goods and services. When there is too much demand and too little supply, prices are artificially high (as in the current US healthcare market). In a free market, (unfettered by false intervention) then businesses would surge in to supply for that demand and prices will fall continue to fall until such time as there is too much supply. At that time, businesses will fail or drop out of the market and supply will shrink again until an equilibrium that the market can bear is reached. Right now, the prices are being propped up by insurance companies and providers in order to keep profits artificially high and supply low. This is not a free market model. “

In your teaching of free market forces you are correct. Equilibrium will be found if left alone. Then you get to your last sentence of “this is not a free market model”. Insurance is not free market. It is very regulated, but at the state level where it should be. So equilibrium is hard to find with all the regulations. I was a company driver for about 11 months. I decided that I wanted to go back into business for myself. It took about 48 hours to do so. It takes months to set up an insurance company. If things in the trucking industry change, I change my plan and it's done in a few days. Insurance companies can't do anything with out weeks or months of forms and audits etc. Insurance has nothing to do with the free market.

“The same greed-driven yahoos with MBAs who brought us the recession, the mortgage debacle, the collapse of GM et al, are the ones running the medical insurance business. Do you really want to entrust the guys who stole your house, your job, and your life savings to tend to your health? “

Greed is a good thing. Nobody does anything without some amount of greed involved. Do you work for $5 an hour or more than that? Why don't you work for the lower amount? Because you want things that you can't have at the lower wage. Are you greedy for wanting the bigger house, better education, nicer car, finer food, or to be able to go out to dinner? Anything better than 3 slops and a flop is greed driven for better things.

The mortgage problems were brought on by congressmen who wanted to “roll the dice” to get people who couldn't afford house payments and upkeep into houses. Banks were told to loan money and Fannie and Freddie were told to do their thing with subprime mortgages. The bank regulators were in charge of overseeing IGA and Wall Street, other highly regulated businesses.

So now they come up with Cash 4 Clunkers. They said how much money they would need to last until the end of the year. It lasted 4 days. Now they want 3 times the money they thought they would need. Great estimate.

Now you want these same people to run 1/6 of the total economy, and they can't buy junk cars. Which BTW takes a 130 page form for the dealer to get his money back..

But what does greed get us other than a nicer house or car. How about drugs to save your live, if they were legal to give you, but that's another story.

For what I bought this truck for I could have bought a nice house where I live. If I bought the house I would have 20 years to pay for it, not 3. So what does my truck and big pharma, as those here like to call it, have to do with greed?

If I'm going to put my savings and future earnings at risk there has to be a return. No return, I'm a company driver and somebody else can take the risk. While I spent 10's of thousands of dollars on this truck the drug companies spend 10's of millions on trying to bring a new drug to market. Do they risk the capital of their investors for their health? No, they do it for a return, greed you might call it.

Do you have all your money under your mattress or is it in the bank or invested in something? Are you greedy because want some amount of return?

CatnLion,

I'm not sure why I agreed to do this. I thought that some common ground in an interest in justice and fairness would bring us together. I'm not sure that you listened to me or believed a word that I said. I don't think it would matter how many citations I provided you. I think that for folks like you the "ideology" of less government or no government is going to trump any and all evidence of injustice or wrong doing particularly by businesses. I also think that you don't believe that 50MM people are without health insurance, or that the health care crisis my friends are experiencing while spending 20K a year on health insurance are REAL or are widespread. I also think you are dead set against our president. Period. And nothing will change that.

The truth is that you think that people don't have money or insurance because IT IS THEIR FAULT. Isn't that the case? Really. Isn't that what you're saying?

You also believe that our capitalist system of private competition can solve ALL, which frankly is NOT a belief held by most economists, particularly when it comes to public goods and free riders. Please educate yourself.

I think your view of capitalism or free enterprise is some sort of a cult belief system propagated by people that are fortunate, and don't want to believe that some people aren't and they need our help. So, I'm not sure there's much for us to discuss. Honestly.

Plus, health insurance companies have done more than "crappy things." They have literally denied coverage or stalled coverage for individuals, which has killed them AND they have bankrupted people. You talk of HSAs, which are fine for those with means, but no substitute for an insurance policy for those without. Do you realize what $5K means to some people with little to no money.

You say that companies have done "crappy" things but you do not advocate laws against those injustices. You "feel sorry" for people that have been bankrupted by their medical bills (despite having insurance). So, what's the solution for these true crimes.

What is going on here CatnLion?

Then you bring up Obama mentioning what the health insurance company did to his mother before she died. That company suggested that she had cancer before she bought her policy, and therefore it would have been a preexisting condition for which she shouldn't have been covered. He said he saw her worry about this. HOW does that suggest that he did nothing to help her? That's what you said:

ONE THING I FIND INTERESTING IN THE DEBATE IS YOU HAVE HEARD PRESIDENT OBAMA TALK ABOUT HIS MOTHER'S WORRIES. SHE HAD A SON WHO IS AN IVY LEAGUE LAWYER AND HE DIDN'T STEP IN AND TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS? I KNOW WHEN MY MOTHER GOT COLON CANCER I MOVED FROM AZ TO VA TO HELP HER OUT.

Why did you say that? What relevance is there for saying this? I'm sure he fought for his mother's insurance just like the rest of us fight for our parents when they are elderly and fretting. Did you want a blow by blow of his conversation with her? And "then I said, and then she said." Why even say such a thing? Honestly, I think that this comment by you is bizarre and hateful and without any merit. Really. Tell me what's going on here?

And YES there will be one public option but that won't be the ONLY option. There will be lots of options offered by your favorite == private insurance companies! However, their policies will have to be vetted by the government. No more ripping people off. So, you will be able to buy that policy without certain benefits. As I said, there will be Ford versions and Cadillac versions. What's your beef with this? It's that it involves "government" and therefore isn't even a notion attainable by you....

In fact, do you know that insurance companies were unhappy that there would be a public option because the "competition" would be too stiff? I find this hilarious. I hope that the government insurance plan runs private policies into the ground OR creates some very worthy insurance policies.

Not everyone is as fortunate as you to have a safety net. There are millions of people living from paycheck to paycheck (or not) through no fault of their own, that don't have a safety net (savings). Actually, many did have insurance FOR THAT VERY REASON == a SAFETY NET == but their insurance companies either did not pay as promised or dropped them.

And you may have worked for an actuary and you may think that what was supposed to happen was that the pool was supposed to be a balance of healthy and unhealthy people to keep it viable. Well, that's not the case, and here's what's happened. We have young people 18-32 who do not get insurance for various reasons, and older people and sick people who do, and the pool has become skewed and does not operate as it should, which is why we need mandated insurance for everyone. Everyone. That's how Medicare works, by the way. (And about why we all don't just have Medicare: That has been AARP's policy for years: Everyone should have Medicare. Obama saw a need not just for expansion but for reform, which is why he didn't just want to expand Medicare).

Please go here and listen to his speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-in-AARP-Tele-Town-Hall-on-Health-Care-Reform/

And for people with a preexisting condition, "traveling across state lines" wouldn't help anything. They'd still find the same underwriting prohibitions denying them the same health insurance coverage. Things have become that bad. So, that idea won't fly. And everyone can't go to work for Walmart-- not that that kind of employment would pay the bills.

And many states like ours DO NOT have a public option. This is why my child and his mate can't buy insurance from the "state high risk pool." Ours is not funded. Period. Many states DO NOT have a public option.

And it isn't always feasible, for many people, to just "change jobs and find one that has health insurance." Can you imagine fighting losing your job, a catastrophic illness of a family member, possible foreclosure, and who knows what else and then telling yourself, "Oh, I'll just move to state xyz for that next job?" Where is your humanity man?

Next suggestion?

I think that actually, this is a fight about what kind of a country we want to live in. I vote for a just society and one that provides safety nets, fair ones, with the appropriate input from its citizenry, for everyone from the time we are born until the time we die.

About cost -- here's what Obama had to say in that link I provided:

"But we all know that right now, we've got a problem that threatens Medicare and our entire health care system, and that is the spiraling cost of health care in America today. As costs balloon, so does Medicare's budget. And unless we act, within a decade -- within a decade -- the Medicare trust fund will be in the red.

Now, I want to be clear: I don't want to do anything that will stop you from getting the care you need -- and I won't. But you know and I know that right now we spend a lot of money in our health care system that doesn't do a thing to improve people's health. And that has to stop. We've got to get a better bang for health care dollar.

And that's why I want to start by taking a new approach that emphasizes prevention and wellness, so that instead of just spending billions of dollars on costly treatments when people get sick, we're spending some of those dollars on the care they need to stay well: things like mammograms and cancer screenings and immunizations -- common-sense measures that will save us billions of dollars in future medical costs.

We're also working to computerize medical records, because right now, too many folks wind up taking the same tests over and over and over again because their providers can't access previous results. Or they have to relay their entire medical history -- every medication they've taken, every surgery they've gotten -- every time they see a new provider. Electronic medical records will help to put an end to all that.

We also want to start rewarding doctors for quality, not just the quantity, of care that they provide. Instead of rewarding them for how many procedures they perform or how many tests they order, we'll bundle payments so providers aren't paid for every treatment they offer with a chronic -- to a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how are they managing that disease overall. And we'll create incentives for physicians to team up and treat a patient better together, because we know that produces better outcomes.

And we certainly won't cut corners to try to cut costs, because we know that doesn't work. And that's something that we hear from doctors all across the country. For example, we know that when we discharge people from the hospital a day early without any kind of coordinated follow-up care, too often they wind up right back in the hospital a few weeks later. If we had just provided the right care in the first place, we'd save a whole lot of money and a lot of human suffering, as well.

Finally, we'll eliminate billions in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies in the Medicare Advantage program --giveaways that boost insurance company profits but don't make you any healthier. And we'll work to close that doughnut hole in Medicare Part D that's costing so many folks so much money. Drug companies, as a consequence of our reform efforts, have already agreed to provide deeply discounted drugs, which will mean thousands of dollars in savings for the millions of seniors paying full price when they can least afford it.

All of this is what health insurance reform is all about: protecting your choice of doctor; keeping your premiums fair; holding down your health care and your prescription drug costs; improving the care that you receive -- and that's what health care reform will mean to folks on Medicare."

To me, this is absolutely right on.

Please also go to Cap'n Parrothead's recent blog post and see what he has written and the comment JK Brady has posted. You'll learn a lot.

Denese

Blackflon,

Please go to Obama's speech to AARP, which will explain in a very easy to read manner why Medicare is having financial problems. He also mentions how health insurance reform would correct these problems.

Please go here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-in-AARP-Tele-Town-Hall-on-Health-Care-Reform/

There are issues with private insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies that have created this problem. It's not correctable through private enterprise.

And you may not know what state the elderly in this country were in before Social Security and Medicare, but read up. My mother and millions like her are grateful for every minute they have Medicare.

Medicaid is insurance for the poor, mostly women on public assistance, unmarried, with children.

denese

Denese,

You have me so very wrong.

I believe we need some reform for insurance. Not just all of those that the bill is calling for. If you want to control costs then tell the lawyers to screw off and get some tort reform going. How many millions did Senator Edwards make in suing medical insurance providers. If you are hurt or something you should get what is coming to you. To add millions on top of what you deserve as punitive damages is nuts. What does a lawyer get, 40%? That's money that should go to the victim to care for what ever happened to them.

I like my doctor. I would like to keep him. But if for some reason I have to change medical plans that is not an option. Yes, you have options right up until something changes then you only have one option, the public option. End of the road. No finding another insurance plan you like. There is no appeal. The bill says there is to be no legal reviews by the courts. There is also a survivability clause so if the courts throw something out the rest of the bill stands.

As for the 50mm number, I'm in that number. I was without insurance for about a week. My DIL and child is in that number because until her mother ragged her butt she refused to pay the money for health insurance. I don't know what she was spending her money on. She lived with us and we payed all the bills. That 50mm number is not a “pure” number. Give me a number of chronically uninsured, not some number that works for this argument.

Yes I do know what 5k means to some body. I've lost my ass more than once. We like where we live so we stayed but we live in the middle of a farm in a 1969 mobile home. We moved there because I had to have 2 hip surgeries to prevent hip replacements. I spent 2 years sitting in a chair. My long term disability paid $1096 a month gross. It wiped us out. Get SSDI, nope, it takes 3 years to get a hearing in NC after all the administrative procedures are done. As for living paycheck to paycheck, that ended about 6 months ago, except for the $16k in unpaid child support and about $15k in student loans. I'm on a catch up plan on both of those and we don't worry about have the electricity shut off now.

Reading your reply about traveling across state lines and state high risk pools has such a spin on it I'm dizzy. That I know of, no state has an assigned risk pool for health insurance, but we need it. Yes insurance companies will deny people on underwriting rules. That is their right as a private business. But they need to accept their share of those who are denied. That needs to be in a reform bill, not a government program. Just force insurance companies to take them on some sort of rotation schedule or other fair plan. Set up the standards for a “forced plan” so there will be a minimum that everybody will have. If you want a program where the government pays part or all of the premiums based on need, I would be okay with that. What I didn't say is that there is a plan the government runs like the proposed public option.

The limitations on where I can buy an insurance policy needs to go also. If the plan I want is sold in LA I shouldn't have a problem buying it just because I live in NC. That's another reform item I would like to see.

Obama thinks he can control costs and save money, let him prove it. They have never done it before, either party, so why should I think they can do it now. What program have they ever saved money on? If he can figure out how to do it then I'll be more open to him spending money to do things.

You talked about electronic medical records. I like that. They use them at the VA. I go anywhere and they know everything. They are at the point where even x-rays are no film. They shoot them and they instantly show up on my doctors computer. My ortho guy (non VA) uses the same thing for records, but not x-rays. The records are just for his office but it doesn't matter which provider I see they all have the info in front of them and there is no chasing paper records. A system where the government has the right to review them or utilize them for information mining, no.

You can reward Dr's for quality care. The reason that there are lots of tests is because of the lawyers. Again they practice medicine but they also have to practice CYA. You didn't order a test then if they have to go to court the lawyer goes after why you didn't do it and it would have saved them etc. BTW, my step-brothers father was a doctor. His office was at the end of the road we lived on so we saw lots of this kind of stuff.

I am worried worried about the readmit provisions you talk about. After my first surgery I went about 3 months and ended up back in the hospital. They thought I had developed a blood clot in my hip and it had broken loose causing me to have a stroke. After a few days in the hospital looking for the clot they determined that I didn't have a stroke but they don't know what caused the problem. What worries me is if a doctor didn't readmit me because it would have cost him his bonus money so he would have just sent me home and it was a stroke or something.

As for the Medicare programs, I'm going to defer to you on those. While I'm getting there, and my mail box is full of AARP stuff, I've not looked at it. My wife did before we were married as she was on Part D and who knows what. I just can't speak to that.

I do know that what Dr's are paid hasn't been raised in years and Dr's are not taking Medicare in some places.

Look there are lots of things with health care that we can fix. We do agree on that. We also agree that it needs to be done, I just think this is the wrong way to go. My way, would insure everyone and not have a giant program or a government option, but the end results are the same.

Where you really confused me is that this has something to do with President Obama himself. It doesn't. I don't know where you got that.

Your turn.

Denese,

I was just in taking a shower and I was thinking. Does she understand why I like lots of ideas that have nothing to do with the government? So let me tell you some of why.

First I really do believe that government doesn't create wealth, only use it. They do have a payroll because it does take people, places and things to make everything move. They don't make cars, well now they do, planes, boats, shoes or anything else.

I know you are a lawyer but you dropped out so you're okay in my book. I'm a truck driver. I'm over regulated.

The DOT tells the trucking industries how trucks have to be built, loads secured and stuff that is their job. They then go on to tell me how many hours a day I can drive. How many hours I have to take off before I can drive again. But wait, there's more. They tell me how many hours I have to be in bed. They have the right to stop me and put me out of service because they think I'm tired. It doesn't matter if I've been driving 10 hours or 10 minutes. DOT thinks I tired, I go off duty no appeal I'm done for the next 10 hours.

Let's get extreme. Remember I live 300+ days a year in the truck with a bed, 2 seats, a couple cabinets and about 18 square feet of floor space. I have to not only record but graph when I start, end, fuel, but I also tell them when I stop to take a piss!

They used a check list, until a judge finally stopped it until they can have a hearing about it, where they judged how tied I was by answering such questions as how dirty is my cab. Do I have a TV and believe it or not how often I MASTURBATE! When is the last time you were stopped on the side of the road and asked how often you masturbate by a law enforcement officer?

Government has it's place. We just need them to go back to what they were created to do and get out of our life.

I've listened, and listened, and listened, and I only hear a huge mess in all of it. There is not one voice on this subject that makes any sense to me. I read all this stuff, and once in a while, I voice my strong opinion, which is throw it all over. It is broken down to it's roots, and reform ain't gonna make it ride. It was a disaster from its inception.

Robin,

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but are you saying that you don't believe that even health care reform (ala Obama) will fix this mess?

denese

First, CatnLion, don't say stuff like this:

ONE THING I FIND INTERESTING IN THE DEBATE IS YOU HAVE HEARD PRESIDENT OBAMA TALK ABOUT HIS MOTHER'S WORRIES. SHE HAD A SON WHO IS AN IVY LEAGUE LAWYER AND HE DIDN'T STEP IN AND TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS? I KNOW WHEN MY MOTHER GOT COLON CANCER I MOVED FROM AZ TO VA TO HELP HER OUT.

..and I won't accuse you of being patently against Obama. You must have found that on some Fox newscast. Really. It's incredibly irrelevant and frankly stupid.

Now for dinner and I'll be back.

denese

Dear CatnLion (aka Harold);

I think you have some good ideas, however, tonight may not be the best time for me to critique them (I told you about my neck issues). So, I posted them for my friends to respond to. Hopefully they will. They are the next post down, or here:

http://open.salon.com/blog/denese/2009/08/11/catnlions_comments_re_health_care_reform_please_respond

I can tell you why people are upset with you and why they might not respond. And this isn't just directed at you. This is directed at many on the conservative side of the health care argument. I think that your responses do not show any empathy toward people that are in difficult straights, and people that have been totally reamed by insurance companies. It's like you've had it tough, so you expect others to have it the same And it's like you give a pass to private insurance companies no matter what they do.

However, even so, I thought that some of your ideas had merit and could be implemented as a first step, although this wouldn't be my particular vote. So, let's see who shows up.

Goodnight.

denese

JK

http://www.layover.com/features/features/driver-fatigue-checklist-042409.html

Go to the paragraph after the headline

Additional questions on the checklist:

JK,

I almost forgot, do you have to fill out a government form to tell them when and where you went to the bathroom?

CatnLion:

I wanted to tell you that there are health insurance policies offered by states for those that are uninsurable. They're called "high risk pools." The one in Louisiana is basically unfunded. Anyway, what IS funded has been purchased by about a dozen people. The premiums are outrageous, the deductibles high, the co-pays high and the liability limits low. I'm not sure who bought into this policy but probably someone desperate.

My niece's husband in CO bought into theirs due to being denied insurance after coming back from a job abroad (where he bought extra private health care insurance by the way) and was taking a cholesterol lowering drug -- - so he had a preexisting condition.

I have another niece that is insured by the NY high risk pool. I can't quite figure out how she had to buy into this, as she works for the NY public school system and has always had good jobs and insurance... But, you know, the system isn't fair.

Those states must have OK policies...???

I would check into NC's high risk health insurance pool. You're living in a state with some money, and maybe it's okay?

Anyway, it isn't an answer for people that are uninsured for numerous reasons across as many states.

denese

denese,

I've never seen a high risk pool for health insurance. I've seen them for car insurance.

I want to thank you for doing my research and making my point. Sense the states have them set up, why duplicate the efforts. Why not just set standards for their coverage and control the price if not pay it in total for those who can't. For example, your kids are screwed, we will pay it all. You are so so employed, so you pay $100 from each check and uncle sam pays the rest. Of course those number are just made up but you know where I'm heading.

CatnLion,

For the most part the coverage is poor (to non existent like in Louisiana) and the payments high. And the option doesn't "fix" the structural problems in the insurance industry. No savings. So, I'm not with you on this.

denese

There's no doubt the nation is polarized, not just on health care, but on almost every topic. I think it's because there are fewer moderates in Congress. This is partly due to redistricting. So many districts in this country are uncontested. They are either pure red or pure blue. Consequently, candidates feel no need to speak to the other side. This causes the parties to congeal into predictable and intransigent voting blocks. Nowadays, when there's a discussion in Congress, the only people in attendance are opposition researchers and C-Span. Also, because the campaign finance system is out of control, our representatives spend so much time raising money that there's not time left to think, read, listen, debate, and discuss. Very sad.