The Obama Administration thread

[freedom78]

i dont know about that. we've had what, 2 attacks on our soil? Pearl Harbor and 9-11 in 300 plus years.

who is to say that there wouldn't have been more if not for our bigger military

Pearl Harbor, the last conventional military attack against US soil, occurred before the things I mentioned above...nukes and NATO.  It also happened when our military was relatively small.  The difference is that now, with nukes and NATO, any single state can be militarily moderate in size but the combination of those forces is massive.

plus what u aren't factoring in is, it takes training and skill to be in the military. it isn't like if we need soldiers, u can just grab people out of their homes, stick an automatic rifle in their hands and say have had it.

or hey, go fly this plane..

Why not?  That's exactly what we did in WWII. 

But such a massive mobilization would only be necessary for large scale wars, which are unlikely due to our nuclear weapons and alliances.  A moderately sized military could handle other threats. 

[AxlsMainMan]

Pearl Harbor, the last conventional military attack against US soil, occurred before the things I mentioned above...nukes and NATO. 

It also could have been an inside job

[D]

I like what ive read on the healthcare proposal that passed.

[tim_m]

I like what ive read on the healthcare proposal that passed.

I do too. I'm shocked at some of the things opponents are saying. Like its a total government take over or its communism and socialism. Seriously what the heck?

[pilferk]

It's a good first step.  There's other things that need addressing (torte reform, etc), but this is progress.

And I can tell you from someone who's sort of "on the ground", docs aren't threatening to leave their practices en masse. NOBODY thinks they're going to make significantly less money (though they may have to BILL less money in order to take in the same revenue..which is good news for everyone) at this point, and nobody is worried they're not going to be able to pay their overhead or malpractice insurance based off of these reforms.  And NOBODY in any position of merit at our institution suspects this will lead to rationing.   At least nobody I'm talking to..

The AMA actually SUPPORTS this bill. 

[sandman]

i don't fully understand the details of the bill, so it's tough to say. most of the analysis is only focused on the political impact for congress.

my biggest concern is with the cost, which no matter how hard i try, i probably won't get comfortable with that. it is difficult to predict healthcare costs, and some ofthe methods and assumptions don't sit well with me.

insurance companies seem happy with the bill. my early poll of contacts at 3 large health insurers has gotten me consistent answers...they are "cautiously optimistic."

and of course the drug companies are thrilled.

[freedom78]

It's a good first step.  There's other things that need addressing (torte reform, etc), but this is progress.

And I can tell you from someone who's sort of "on the ground", docs aren't threatening to leave their practices en masse. NOBODY thinks they're going to make significantly less money (though they may have to BILL less money in order to take in the same revenue..which is good news for everyone) at this point, and nobody is worried they're not going to be able to pay their overhead or malpractice insurance based off of these reforms.  And NOBODY in any position of merit at our institution suspects this will lead to rationing.   At least nobody I'm talking to..

The AMA actually SUPPORTS this bill. 

We should package strong tort reform (but with serious patient protections) with a viable public option.  One  to cut costs (albeit by a small percentage)...the other to help out those still left outside in the cold by this reform.  

[Bodhi]

I will wait to see what the final bill looks like with whatever revisions take place before I really comment on it, but as of right now I dont like how you are forced to buy health insurance or face fines.  I dont like how the taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions even if its against their religious beliefs, that is wrong.  I also want to see what kind of coverage people who are here illegally will be getting, and who is going to pay for that, cause we already know they wont.  Other than that, I like how people with pre-existing conditions wont have trouble getting coverage etc... so we will see.  But if social security, the post office and the public school system are any indication of what happens when the government runs things, lets just say I'm a little skeptical on how this will pan out.



Also that is ignoring the fact of how they actually achieved the 219 votes which is disgusting, but it is the government we are talking about, so its not even worth mentioning.

[freedom78]

I will wait to see what the final bill looks like with whatever revisions take place before I really comment on it, but as of right now I dont like how you are forced to buy health insurance or face fines.

If this were just about personal choice, I'd agree with you.  But since most of those unpaid bills get passed on to everyone else through increased premiums and higher costs, I'm for the mandate.  Of course, if you just go with single payer, you cover everyone and don't have to worry about fines, mandates, and whatnot.
 

I dont like how the taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions even if its against their religious beliefs, that is wrong.

So why can't people with religious grounds for pacifism avoid paying for national defense and war?  Why do vegetarians have to pay for meat inspections?  Why do the Amish have their taxes used to build interstates?

That aside, this bill doesn't pay for abortions.  While many insurance plans do cover this procedure, it is not mandated in coverage, nor would tax dollars be used for it.  It "pays" for abortion in the same sense that Republican tax cuts "pay" for abortions.  You give people some money and some will use it to get an abortion.  Tax revenue will subsidize insurance for some, and that money will be kept separate from the premiums paid by individuals and their employers.  Private money will pay for that procedure; tax money will not.     

Other than that, I like how people with pre-existing conditions wont have trouble getting coverage etc... so we will see. 

If there was one thing that needed doing, it was to deal with pre-existing conditions.  In honor of us agreeing, I toast us with this beer smiley:   

But if social security, the post office and the public school system are any indication of what happens when the government runs things, lets just say I'm a little skeptical on how this will pan out.

Social security struggles  because one generation fought a war then bred like rabbits, but the next generation didn't do so much of the breeding, meaning a smaller generation has to pay for a larger.  That's not the only problem, but it's the biggest and has nothing to do with the concept of social security in general.  Of course, if it were privatized, we'd now be saying "oh, shit!  Retirees just lost half their savings!  We need some social security!"

The post office provides a service unlike any other.  They come to every house, every day.  That electronic mail and bill payment has cut down their funds shouldn't be a surprise, any more than Netflix beating Blockbuster should.   

Public schools...in my state, the Republican governor murdered public school budgets and, I predict, will use this as a way to criticize public schools.  Predictable.  I wonder...do Republicans create bad policies for the sole purpose of convincing people that government is bad? 

Also that is ignoring the fact of how they actually achieved the 219 votes which is disgusting, but it is the government we are talking about, so its not even worth mentioning.

I don't see why reconciliation is "disgusting" while using the filibuster to stop the will of the majority is perfectly acceptable.  Not that that's necessarily your position, but it does seem to be the GOP party line these days.

[pilferk]

We should package strong tort reform (but with serious patient protections) with a viable public option.  One  to cut costs (albeit by a small percentage)...the other to help out those still left outside in the cold by this reform.  

The thing with Torte reform (or rather, specifically with malpractice insurance premiums) is it's a small % of pass on to each individual patient, but a large % of a practitioners overhead.  So reducing it makes things better for the docs AND better for the patients.  It's win/win.  And even the AMA advocates ensuring that torte reform is balanced with strong patient protection.  The funny part is, in all this, it's the REPUBLICANS who want to strip out a lot of the patient protection stuff from torte reform, NOT the docs/AMA.  I'm not sure which lobby is leading them to think that's necessary...but they seem to.

[pilferk]

i don't fully understand the details of the bill, so it's tough to say. most of the analysis is only focused on the political impact for congress.

my biggest concern is with the cost, which no matter how hard i try, i probably won't get comfortable with that. it is difficult to predict healthcare costs, and some ofthe methods and assumptions don't sit well with me.

insurance companies seem happy with the bill. my early poll of contacts at 3 large health insurers has gotten me consistent answers...they are "cautiously optimistic."

and of course the drug companies are thrilled.

Cost doesn't bother me, so long as it's payed for.  Budget office says it is....and given their lack of partisanship, I have no reason to disbelieve them. If it's not, THEN I have a problem......

Insurance companies are happy because they'll have a larger pool, which helps adjust risk and lower their costs.  It should also lower premiums on apples to apples comparisons.  AND it doesn't contain a public option or any move toward single payor, which means they get to stay in business.    They're marginally ticked about some of the new rules they'll have to obey, with the consumer protection laws they'll now face, and the "no pre-existing condition" denial being waved is going to eat profit margins....but is acceptable when compared with the alternatives.

Basically, the bill reigns them in, but doesn't prevent them from making money.

The drug companies, from what I've read, are NOT entirely happy, actually.  I think you'll hear more about why in the coming weeks.  They're going to see steeply declining unit by unit profits and an inability to continue to charge exhorbitant prices here, while charging significantly less elsewhere. They made significant concessions (50% discounts on drugs to Medicare participants who have to pay out of pocket, etc) but didn't get all that sweet of a deal.  I suppose you could argue that they're happy because they're paying the least amount in fees (with medical equipment and the insurance industry paying a larger share), but that's a pretty small victory.  I suspect they're paying less (well, aside from their lobby being mighty) because it's expected their unit by unit revenue is going to decrease a bit, and they'd already made some concessions.  Of course, with an increased customer base (if everyone has insurance), they could likely see more OVERALL revenue, which would offset.

[pilferk]

I will wait to see what the final bill looks like with whatever revisions take place before I really comment on it, but as of right now I dont like how you are forced to buy health insurance or face fines. 

You mean, like being forced to carry auto insurance?

Yes, the difference is you can choose to have a car or not...while having a body is sort of required, but the principal remains the same.  Not having someone pay your medical bills means we ALL have to pay your medical bills.  It's funny...Repubs are all about personal responsibility yet this is the ULTIMATE in personal responsibility, in the whole bill, and it seems to get some of the loudest objections from them.  The goverment is REQUIRING you to be able to take care of yourself if you get sick, rather than making the rest of the population pay your way through increased costs.  I don't have a single problem with that.

I dont like how the taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions even if its against their religious beliefs, that is wrong.

It's also not true.  First off,  there is a concession that WILL BE adopted by the Senate that will change that language.  Second, Obama has issued an executive order stating that NO federal funds will be used to pay for elective abortions. 

That being said: I have no issue, given the findings of our Supreme Court, with how my tax money is used, so long as it's legal.  Your objection is akin to a pacifist complaining his taxes are being used to fund our national defense (and thus, war).  Taxes are spent on our SOCIETY, not any particular individual.  If the Courts and Roe V. Wade uphold Freedom of Choice.....then saying the federal government can't fund premiums for insurance that MIGHT be used to fund an abortion would be just as illegal, IMHO, as preventing the abortion itself.

  I also want to see what kind of coverage people who are here illegally will be getting, and who is going to pay for that, cause we already know they wont. 

I think there is a reason you're now hearing strong cries (and agreement from the White House) about the need for strong immigration reform.  On this, though, we agree.  If you're illegal, and you get sick, hurt, whatever....we treat you, turn to your government for payment (since, remember, pretty much everyone else has single payor) and go from there.  If that means you get shipped back home, so be it. 

Other than that, I like how people with pre-existing conditions wont have trouble getting coverage etc... so we will see.  But if social security, the post office and the public school system are any indication of what happens when the government runs things, lets just say I'm a little skeptical on how this will pan out.

The beauty of THIS system is...the government actually ain't gonna be running anything.  Private industry will still exist.  There are 2 differences:

1) There are some strong consumer protection laws that will force that private industry to do business in a specific, regulated way
2) There will be someone else (in some cases...specifically the government) paying the insurance premiums.

Really, this isn't nearly, if you read the bill, any kind of government take over of healthcare.  They are not operating any specific segment of the industry EXCEPT the marketplaces people can go to buy insurance...and even then, only for awhile.  They're basically going to function as "insurance e-bay" until they can transition that process off.

The rest of what they'll do is actually what they do best: Regulate and enforce.

Also that is ignoring the fact of how they actually achieved the 219 votes which is disgusting, but it is the government we are talking about, so its not even worth mentioning.

How is that, exactly?  Looks like a lot of the fat is getting trimmed in reconcilliation, most of the pet project amendements are going to get stripped.....it looks like they did pretty much what they've always done (Dems and Repubs).

[Jdog0830]

We do have a lot of enemies.  Many of them have a lot to do with the size of our military and the ways we've used it.  It's a lovely circle.

Step 1: We have this big military left over from WWII.
Step 2: Let's strategically position ourselves all over the world
Step 3: Bomb something
Step 4: Oh no!  We just got attacked!  We must need a bigger military!
Step 5: Repeat step 2 in new and wonderful places where we haven't yet been at war.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3-4 ad infinitum.

regardless of how we got our enemies, I would like to keep breathing.  I dont wanna pay the price for the selfish and stupid acts of my government.  So if we have to keep building up our military so be it.  Whats the alternative?

The alternitive is to make America look like a bunch of pussys.

Get over it freedom78 we are acting like England did before WW2 or WW1 in a way and if my guesses are right Isrial and China will be there to take our place if we do end up like England.
After all the violence is done in the middle east I am sure later we would go to Aftica and the South America.
But that is for a latter time to talk about even though dictators are killing innocents and drug cartels run the countrys.



Joe

[sandman]

millions of new customers will help both insurers and drug companies, especially the larger ones. i have family that works at Merck, one of which is a big wig in R&D, and they were very concerned about patents and generics. but this bill actually protects big pharma in that regard. that, combined with new business due to 30M more customers makes it a clear win for Big Pharma. their stocks are mostly up today.

insurers will be fine as well. their profits may take a hit initially, but again, with millions of new customers their premium revenue will increase (with alot of it coming from healthy new customers). and insurance companies that serve primarily large companies are in a really good position. the people i've talked to were only disappointed that the fine is not higher for not having insurance.

as for the cost, one assumption is Medicare cuts. we'll know sooner than later how good the asusmptions relied upon by the CBO actually are.

  

[Jdog0830]

This bill is also getting passed because all the insurance comps have been making a bunch of cash over the years from simply making health insurance more costy.

This bill will make it so they have to compete again. And compitition will force those companys to lower there prices.

This bill is going to give a lot of people health insurance and help those struggling familys.





Joe

[D]

As I am getting ready to graduate and enter the medical field, i know a lot of people are concerned with this..

maybe i am naive or making it too simple, but to me, if MORE people are covered, MORE people can go to the Dr. thus all medical fields should make MORE money, correct?

Or am i totally missing something?

I don't know how I feel about the huge cut to medicare though. I know Heath Shuler voted against it, due to 500 billion being cut from it...


in the PT field, i know Medicare is huge for the business.

[tim_m]

As I am getting ready to graduate and enter the medical field, i know a lot of people are concerned with this..

maybe i am naive or making it too simple, but to me, if MORE people are covered, MORE people can go to the Dr. thus all medical fields should make MORE money, correct?

Or am i totally missing something?

I don't know how I feel about the huge cut to medicare though. I know Heath Shuler voted against it, due to 500 billion being cut from it...


in the PT field, i know Medicare is huge for the business.

Sounds like you've got it right to me.

[tim_m]

I am just getting tired of hearing the same old crap from people who clearly don't understand any of this. All over my facebook i'm seeing this is communism or socialism. This is a government takeover they're taking away our freedoms. We're being forced to buy in to a certain plan or be fined. Your free to buy ANY plan you want. As pilf said you should be required to take care of YOURSELF. The plan also has a hardship exemption for poorer americans. I'm starting think many people aren't even reading a damn thing about this bill and are just making wild accusations and repeating the right wing crap.

[Bodhi]

Also that is ignoring the fact of how they actually achieved the 219 votes which is disgusting, but it is the government we are talking about, so its not even worth mentioning.

How is that, exactly?  Looks like a lot of the fat is getting trimmed in reconcilliation, most of the pet project amendements are going to get stripped.....it looks like they did pretty much what they've always done (Dems and Repubs).

im talking about the back door deals and payoffs to certain states for their votes, Lousiana, Florida etc...  What was the final count on how much money members of the House pocketed for their own interestes?

[Bodhi]

Also I saw a few of you use the whole pacifist having to pay for war analogy in order to justify the abortion that is STILL in this bill as of right now.  It is not the same.  Having to pay for national defense to keep you and your fellow countrymen alive is nowhere near the same as having to pay for a 16 year old slut in high school who can't keep her legs closed.  In theory you guys are right, but I don't think they are the same.

Like I said I will wait until all the lawsuits that have been filed today and all the red tape clears before really commenting on this bill.  It is chaos in the streets today.  Political careers will be finished over this, and there is guaranteed to be a huge change in the House and Senate this fall, thats not me talking, thats the polls.  So I think we are a long ways away from this really going anywhere.  I imagine the republicans tying this up for a while.