Huzza, Huzza, Harry Reid!
Reid to McConnell: Do I make myself perfectly clear?
Excerpts of Reid’s letter to Senator McConnell:
“While Republicans were distorting the facts in the health care debate and inflicting delay after needless delay, millions of Americans have continued to suffer as they struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their homes. Thousands of Americans lose their health care every day, and tens of thousands of the uninsured have lost their lives since this debate began.”
“Many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support. We will not. We will finish the job.”
“As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires. Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree.”
“At the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug ‘donut hole’ for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.”
Read the complete letter here.
67 Responses to “Huzza, Huzza, Harry Reid!”
[...] Huzza, Huzza, Harry Reid! – The Moderate Voice“While Republicans were distorting the facts in the health care debate and inflicting delay after needless delay, millions of Americans have continued to suffer as they struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their [...]
Republicans would gladly vote for a bill that did all those things. Unfortunately, the current HCR bill does none of those three things; in fact it does the opposite in all of them. It is a deceitful, lying sham of a bill, and the Democratic Congress is resorting to deceitful, lying sham methods to try and force it down our throats.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100222/D9E19O…
http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/nancy-pelosi-…
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/CD_03-10-10_…
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30…
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.ph…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34165…
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-means-a-…
Now, on a completely separate note, I need to take care of some old business with you Kathy.
I used to post here at TMV under a different name. I was here for many, many years, and towards the end of the time I used my old user name I became extremely abusive, profane, and rude. I said many things, much of them directed towards you, that I sincerely regret saying, both in substance and in tone.
Despite our obvious and deep disagreements over the role of government in society, and even what form of government our country should strive towards having, there are also many things we discovered we agree upon, especially in areas of family, animals, human sexual rights, women's rights, and others.
I do not dislike you personally. I do dislike your politics in general, but that is no excuse for the abuse I targeted towards you.
I would like to now extend a complete, total and unqualified apology for my inappropriate, obnoxious and abusive behavior, and for any grief or hurt feelings I caused.
With true affection,
AustinRoth
Huzza, Huzza AustinRoth…
I still don't agree with much you say but 'hats off' to you for this post.
It's not just a bad bill, but the GOP had to consider the rest of the year if the Dems got away with this.
We're just inching closer to resolution of this.
GOP = the Wall
Dems = breaking on through to the Other Side (forward progress, ho)
Considering that a reconciliation bill hasn't been written yet, it seems kind of dubious to make claims about what it will do.
The Wall, eh?.. For a change I have to agree.
Wow, kinda like “pulling the mask off the old Lone Ranger”……….I have yet to reach your point of catharsis, however.
Hmmm Harry Reid and co had a filibusterproof majority for quite a while and still couldn't convince the moderates in his own party to pass the progressive legislation that the House propossed, and Nancy Pelosi couldn't get the votes needed to agree to pass the Senate bill, despite also holding a big majority.
Of course this naturally the fault of Republicans. So goes progressive “logic”.
CO – was that comment directed at me?
1. Harry Reid's wife and daughter have been involved in an auto accident. Hopefully they're okay.
2. Hang onto your Che Guevara beret, rather than throwing it aloft in joy, Kathy.
Parliamentarian: Obama must sign Senate bill before fixes are passed
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/new…
3. But those crafty [ahem] Dems aren't through.
“In an attempt to achieve final passage of President Obama’s controversial health care bill, Capitol Hill Democrats are considering an unprecedented parliamentary procedure which would essentially enable the House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of the reform package without ever voting on it.”
http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/…
4. And remember — the public option is still alive, for now. House Dems are itchy for it, too.
Medicare buy in for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_XGJHOYuxw&feat…
Thanks GreenDreams
Arguments happily accepted from anyone who spent the five minutes to watch your link… Piss off to arguments that just couldn't be bothered.
““As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires. “
This is what ticks me off most about DC Democrats. I'm NOT a multi-millionaire, a millionaire, or even wealthy by any standard. Yet, I received THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS from these very same tax cuts. In fact, I receive that amount TWICE!
So a little “schmoe” like me got SIX GRAND from a tax cut? That's right Harry Reid, keep your head in the sand.
JD, I hope you're appropriately appreciative to my son, my nephews and nieces who will pay for your little tax break. Meanwhile, those who have NEVER needed our help got 44 times as much as you did. Yes 4400% as much. HUGE largess for multimillionaires financed by our kids. I really don't think of you as THAT selfish. I have come to respect you. But look beyond your own selfish balance sheet.
“Medicare buy in for all.”
Fix It First! [tm]
Actually, not only has the public option not died, but Medicare expansion has been revived currently. The lefty talker airwaves are hot and heavy about this.
All kinds of incrementalist options are there in addition to offering Medicare to everyone: folding Medicaid into Medicare, of course (state relief), but also other incrementalist attacks, namely on the worst parts of the current insurance model (most expensive, most troublesome, but also offering the most relief to ordinary taxpayers who are suffering these problems currently), namely the state high risk pools and then the individual (“non-employer”) insurance market. Something they can consider.
Just don't expect to take money from Medicare (which is ailing) in order to — expand Medicare.
* * *
Meanwhile, it's wrong to misuse reconciliation for health reform or other policy measures. Tax cuts are a budget item and aren't a good example for critics to use. And why should they, when there are previous *** health *** policy issues passed under reconciliation? A very interesting little “secret”…
“In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
* * *
“The Wall, eh?”
More imperative than ever for the GOP to stop things, actually. If the Dems break through, they resume passing all kinds of new legislation.
This is what the Dems want to try to avoid, and what the GOP benefits from its happening.
The GOP stops the Dems,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uYd0d-h_vw
http://www.break.com/…/49ers-incredible-goal-line-st...
and sends the humiliated Dems back to the beginning of 2009, after the 2010 elections,
[I've bookmarked this as "Throw 'em back!"]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2…
and it's obviously the Dems' mission to do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x3SjSgqXGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnYXbJ_bcL
[with Dan Rather -- where's he to comment on any health care legislation that gets passed?]
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=678231n
and then be able to do this time after time with legislation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVPtASsm_CM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oj2cPpNAfY&feature=rel...
etc.
For those who haven't seen Grayson's bill to offer a Medicare buy-in, it's here (below), from THOMAS.
It's refreshingly direct and to the point.
A BILL
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an option for any citizen or permanent resident of the United States to buy into Medicare.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Public Option Act' or the `Medicare You Can Buy Into Act'.
SEC. 2. UNIVERSAL MEDICARE BUY-IN OPTION.
(a) In General- Part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act is amended–
(1) in section 1818(a), by striking `or 1818A' and inserting `, 1818A, or 1818B'; and
(2) by inserting after section 1818A the following new section:
`UNIVERSAL BUY-IN
`Sec. 1818B.
`(a) In General- (a) Every individual who–
`(1) is a resident of the United States;
`(2) is either (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
`(3) is not otherwise entitled to benefits under this part or eligible to enroll under this part;
shall be eligible to enroll in the insurance program established by this part. An individual may enroll under this section only in such manner and form as may be prescribed in regulations, and only during an enrollment period prescribed in or under this section.
`(b) Enrollment; Coverage- The Secretary shall establish enrollment periods and coverage under this section consistent with the principles for establishment of enrollment periods and coverage for individuals under section 1818, except that no entitlement to benefits under this part shall be effective before the first day of the first calendar year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
`(c) Premiums-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The provisions of subsections (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of section 1818 insofar as they apply to premiums (including collection of premiums) shall apply to premiums and collection of premiums under this section, except that–
`(A) paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 1818 shall not be applicable; and
`(B) the estimate of the monthly actuarial rate under section 1818(d) shall be computed and applied under this paragraph based upon costs incurred for individuals within each age cohort specified in paragraph (2) rather than for all individuals age 65 and older.
`(2) AGE COHORTS- The age cohorts specified in this paragraph are as follows:
`(A) Individuals under 19 years of age.
`(B) Individuals at least 19 years of age but not more than 25 years of age.
`(C) Individuals at least 26 years of age and not more than 35 years of age.
`(D) Individuals at least 36 years of age and not more than 45 years of age.
`(E) Individuals at least 46 years of age and not more than 55 years of age.
`(F) Individuals at least 56 years of age and not more than 64 years of age.
`(d) Treatment- An individual enrolled under this part pursuant to this section shall not be treated as enrolled under this part (or any other part of this title) for purposes of obtaining medical assistance for medicare cost-sharing or otherwise under title XIX.'.
Interesting proposal, but I see several problems.
First, he say's we'd offer medicare coverage “at cost.” What does “at cost” mean? There is no set “cost” for medicare that I'm aware of since medicare is an entitlement and not insurance. He says in the video there won't be any subsidies. That indicates that the “cost,” whatever it is, must be variable since a fixed cost would mean there would be subsidies. Most of those who would join this program will be the expensive people who can't currently get insurance because of chronic conditions or high risk for some ailment. What will their cost be compared to someone who is more healthy?
Secondly, he spends time talking about the medicare provider network, but I'm not sure he understands how it works. Providers aren't obligated to take medicare patients, and after a certain number, they will refuse to take more. Many providers consider taking medicare patients to be a form of charity because providers claim they lose money on medicare patients (which is also why providers universally oppose the “doc fix”). What will the effect on the provider network be when medicare rolls are increased substantially?
Well, what do you expect to happen when the tax system is percentage based?
And we've been funding millionaires for decades through medicare and social security thanks to no means testing. JD's little tax break is peanuts in comparison to the almost $70 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that your generation is leaving for my kids and your nephews and nieces, not to mention the cumulative 40+ years of deficit spending. And if this new health care entitlement passes, who knows what costs will be added!
I'm not a big fan of the Bush tax cuts personally, but it would be nice if liberals would spread the rage around a little more, especially since it looks like a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress intend to extend most of the Bush cuts. Just sayin.
“Most of those who would join this program will be the expensive people who can't currently get insurance because of chronic conditions or high risk for some ailment. What will their cost be compared to someone who is more healthy?”
That's the part about the Anthem story recently, and other rate hikes and attempts in the past, that doesn't get mentioned and subjected to all the shrillness, like (absolute) profits (rather than as percentages). The individual insurance market (and no doubt the high risk pool) is suffering a vicious circle as costs climb and the healthier, younger people drop out of that market. Sure, there's greed, but there are cost problems, too.
* * *
“what do you expect to happen when the tax system is percentage based?”
Divorcing taxes paid from benefits received from government — and yet some want progressivity — more of the same.
Well, those who pay the most taxes are naturally going to get the biggest amounts of relief with tax cuts.
It is interesting to consider how a person's view on a topic is shaped by how such policies would impact them personally.
For example if you do support rolling back tax cuts, how much do you pay in taxes (if anything) ?
(that last if anything is legitimate question since 50% or so of the population does not pay income tax and thus would not be impacted if all cuts were eliminated).
Or if you support HRC, what benefits (if any) would you gain from such a policy and how might your personal costs increase ?
For myself, I support HRC (as I will be writing about in more detail this weekend) even though it is unlikely that my costs will go down (indeed they are likely to increase) and I am also unlikely to benefit from any new programs.
I also think some of the tax cuts should be rolled back, although in that case my income is low enough (on the lower side of the middle income range) that I would probably not see an increase unless they rolled back all of the cuts, in which case I'd see a serious spike.
Anyone else want to chime in on their views versus the impact of the policy on their own lives ?
Not an unreasonable point though arguably it goes both ways
IE: How much more will you pay in taxes (presuming you pay taxes) if they eliminate some or all of the cuts and/or how much did you get in benefit from them. It is quite fair to say a persons position should in part depend on how he/she will be impacted by the policy.
As for myself (presuming you will ask) my income is in pretty much in the middle, I am not poor but neither am I anywhere close to rich. If they got rid of all the reductions then my taxes would go up while if they just eliminate the higher ones my taxes would remain fairly stable.
So I could be hurt or I might not, depending on the numbers, but I do think that we do need to look at rolling some of them back regardless.
However the mere fact I am not rich does not mean I hate everyone who is.
On the other hand my benefits from HCR would also be fairly minimal to non existent as I would be unlikely to qualify for most reforms and my costs might well increase. Yet I support it.
Gasp. Oh my God.
Oh my God.
I just feel the need to repeat that over and over. This is exactly how I reacted, if you could have seen and heard me. I was reading, and thinking, well what name did he have before, who was he, and I was trying to rack my brains over some long-time user who had been rude or profane to me. Until I saw your name, it never entered my mind that it was you. I've frequently wondered if you had left TMV, or were just not commenting.
Then I got to the end and saw your name. I gasped. I felt, like, my heart just stop for a moment, and then I just started thinking, Oh my god! Oh my god!
I don't think I can come up with any words more sensible than that, at the moment, with this one exception. I accept your incredibly gracious and eloquent apology without hesitation and with a full and open heart. I am so very, very happy.
But I just never, for one instant, for one moment, ever thought that Schadenfreude was you.
Oh my God.
Okay, I'll stop this now. I'm going to get some sleep and hopefully I'll be more articulate in the morning (or the afternoon).
Austin, what you did here was so brave, and so classy. I'm just totally blown away.
It has been written, Andy. At least, all the elements of it are known and have been made public. It's just a question of being very careful to only include items that have a budgetary impact.
“Throwing it aloft in joy”? Because Harry Reid's wife and daughter were seriously injured in a car accident? Huh?
“Throwing it aloft in joy”?
… Huh?”
No, Kathy.
[sigh]
Look at the title of your thread. And why did you begin it?
Thanks for the text of the bill, DLS. It appears Rep. Grayson does't understand medicare very well. His bill doesn't apply to all of medicare – only part B. Part B was primarily intended to cover gaps in regular medicare (part A) so there is a lot it doesn't cover: The huge one is inpatient care (hospitals). You also couldn't get services through an HMO or PPO, which is provided through part C, and you'd get nothing from part D.
I looked up the most recent actuarial rate for 65+ and the cost for this year is $221 dollars a month. Presumably it would be lower for other age groups, as detailed in the bill. That sounds like a decent price until you consider all the stuff that isn't covered. Land in a hospital and you're screwed, but I guess it's something.
Oy! I just watched the video again. His begins by talking about how his insurance company wouldn't pay for the birth of his daughter. But neither would his bill unless he decided on a home birth since inpatient services wouldn't be covered.
Thank you Kathy, and sorry if I shocked you. Of course, if you remember, when I know I have been wrong, I have no problem extending a proper apology. Perhaps I get too much practice.
If you are interested in how I came up with the name and avatar combination, I explain that in Dorian's 'Toyota: Not Safe “Enough” for My Loved Ones' post.
But for now, sleep tight.
If it's been written, where can I read the text? Sorry, but I've learned not to take what proponents claim will be in a bill at face value, especially when they are still looking for votes.
Wow it's the evil repubs that won't alow a bill to pass that is desperatly needed now, even tho nothing takes place for ten years? I'll be glad when the lying hypocritical prick gets sent home after the next election.
Really? How exactly does that equate with Pelosi comment a couple days ago? You know, this one
You are either too tired, or purposely looking to misread his comments.
He clearly listed the accident as item 1, and hoped his family is OK (actually, his wife broke her back).
The 'throwing aloft' comment was clearly part of his item 2, where the Parliamentarian has killed any thought of passing any changes to the Senate bill via reconciliation prior to Obama signing it into law, which is basically required to get enough House Democrats to go along with passing the Senate bill as is.
“His bill doesn't apply to all of medicare – only part B.”
Perhaps a clue is that he uses the term “public option” with this effort, that he scrambled to put together the quickest (superficial!) imitation he could. (Part B has those 75%-publicly-subsidized “premiums.”)
Normally the “public option” is a federal equivalent of comprehensive insurance, rigged to beat the “competition.” I believe the (real) public option remains alive, at least right now.
“4400% as much. HUGE largess for multimillionaires financed by our kids.”
I understand your point, Green. I just don't agree. Those tax cuts were EQUAL to all by percentage. You CANNOT give a targeted tax cut and stay within the bounds of the Constitution.
Did the rich get more? Absolutely. Did they get a bigger perntage? Absolutely not. The rich should not be punished for finding success in life. A truly fair way to tax would be flat percentage as well. The present graduated tax rates are also unconstitutional.
That is not selfish. That is fair.
“There is no set “cost” for medicare “
What? Cost of care divided by number cared for. It's currently under $7,000 a year. Presumably, the cost would be adjusted into age blocks, since obviously a 30 year old isn't usually as expensive to care for than an 80 year old.
“Most of those who would join this program will be the expensive people who can't currently get insurance “
Not so. Many many people despise the insurance companies, myself included. I just got a 35% increase from #$%^&* Anthem. I have needed nothing in the 20 years I've payed them, but checkups, malaria prophylaxis for my many trips to the tropics and the occasional Rx for antibiotics. I'm healthy and strong. I just got older, so they feel justified in GOUGING me. I'd like to see them fail miserably and disappear into bankruptcy. Also, let me remind you that everywhere except the US, everyone has single payer, perfectly healthy young and old. Their outcomes are better, their costs 1/2. You have no reason to think only the sick or uninsurable would prefer a NONPROFIT provider who puts their health above their profit.
Besides, what do you care? You can keep feeding those reprehensible creeps and their multimillion dollar executives and bloated claims denial departments.
Your opinion about doctors not taking Medicare patients or considering them “charity” is untrue. Actual research shows that 97% take new Medicare patients, exactly the same number who take new PPO patients.
Look, I know both systems very very well. I have fought private insurers both as an individual and as an employer. They suck. They are dishonest greedy creeps. I am deeply involved with my mother's care too. She's on Medicare and believe me, I know all her doctors and nurses, and I know all their opinions about insurance vs Medicare. You can preach your opinion, but I know better from years of deep personal experience.
“You CANNOT give a targeted tax cut and stay within the bounds of the Constitution.”
I've asked before. Prove that. Quote the clause that prevents targeted taxation and targeted tax breaks, because the Bush tax cuts, and ALL tax law is targeted to specific goals.
That comment above was for you. Must have hit the wrong button.
” Actual research shows that 97% take new Medicare patients, exactly the same number who take new PPO patients.
Look, I know both systems very very well”
You don't know Medicare well, though you obviously want it for everyone. The “97% acceptance” is bogus.
Refusals by doctors to take Medicare is a common problem, simply less bad than that with Medicaid, but threatening to become worse if already-substandard reimbursements are lowered. “Accepting at least some Medicare patients” (97%) is bogus; what matters to each patient is being accepted at the time they seek care or seek a provider; that the figure is not 100% always is proof the program needs improvement.
(But first, one must be honest and admit there is a problem. Therein lies a challenge, for some.)
It's a stretch for some, so I haven't done it, but the refusal or rejection problem is such that the correct way to describe the problem is by the rejection rate, both partial and complete. Short of that, the correct thing to do is to check who accepts ALL Medicare patients versus not all. Not all is a PROBLEM. [ahem]
Medicare compares reasonably well and sometimes better than private insurance but it is not perfect.
Its own studies use the study data I have correctly quoted from before.
** Accepting all or most new patients ** (lenient)
Private ins. 87%
Medicare 74%
Medicaid 53%
Accepting “at least some” new Medicare patients:
2007: 92% physicians (no specificity)
88% general practitioners
94% specialists
http://www.medpac.gov/transcripts/Physician%20Dec%2009...
Access is not perfect. The current state of affairs (patient experience as well as provider acceptance) is described here — a mixed message, especially when you examine the details.
“Beneficiaries with no supplemental insurance reported the lowest percentages of always getting urgent (61 percent) or routine (57 percent) care as soon as they wanted. Beneficiaries who also had Medicaid coverage reported the next highest percentages (64 percent for urgent care and 59 percent for routine appointments). Beneficiaries with private (e.g., medigap or employer-based retiree) or other public (veteran or active-duty military) supplemental coverage reported the highest rates of always getting care as soon as they wanted, with 72 percent for urgent care and 63 percent for routine appointments.”
Not 100%. Far from it. There is room for improvement. Medicare is not holy.
http://www.medpac.gov/chapters/Jun09DataBookSec5.pdf
I not only understand the details from reading them and reacting honestly to the facts, but am living with the impending decision on whether or not to take it, or to be dumped on it because I qualify for it and employers and insurers don't neglect such opportunities. (It's routine now for retirees to lose their retiree [employee] health benefits and be put on Medicare when they reach age 65.) That includes frank discussions with doctors currently as far as what kind of (substandard) care can be expected and what kind of (reduced) access I can expect if I change from my out-of-state individual insurance to Medicare.
Wanting single-payer is all well and good but it doesn't merit being over-emotional and less than truly or fully honest in its defense. Single-payer health care is not holy.
DLS, of course Medicare is not perfect. Do you think the private insurance model is? Just give us a nonprofit choice. I don't want my medical care or that of my family in the hands of money grubbing jackasses like ANTHEM (I spit on their fckn balance sheet).
Anyway, my doctor takes new Medicare patients, including me in a few years. So does my mom's excellent cardiologist and internist. It is truly weird of you to make this statement: “that the figure is not 100% always is proof the program needs improvement.” DLS, you know very well that some doctors are not accepting any new patients. ANY. That doesn't prove anything about the system. It just proves they're popular enough that their plate is full.
And again, what do you care? If doctors won't accept healthy new opt-in Medicare patients, the program will fail and I think you'd love that. I believe it will be hugely popular.
And BTW, of course you can buy supplemental care if you want more than Medicare offers. I think you understand that we have to find a reasonable care level and let the gold plated coverage cost extra. That's true of every single payer system I know. It doesn't kill private for-profit insurance, doctors, or hospitals.
Your opinion about doctors not taking Medicare patients or considering them “charity” is untrue. Actual research shows that 97% take new Medicare patients, exactly the same number who take new PPO patients
What I've never seen is a definition of 'taking new patients'. If this means that over the course of a year they'll take one new Medicare patient, then there's going to be a huge problem with access (and it will become worse as more people age into the program)
“DLS, of course Medicare is not perfect. Do you think the private insurance model is?”
The issue here is Medicare. You rush to over-defend and misleadingly describe it, just as you have rushed to defend the status quo with Social Security (which is unsustainable as is) and attack the reality of modern life span and health (the sixties have not been “old” or “elderly” for decades) and any hint at going to a modern retirement age. (I certainly hope you're not a relict unreal earlier-retirement-trend believer, or even a “thirty years and out” person stuck in the already-unrealistic-then 1960s.)
* * *
“It is truly weird of you to make this statement: 'that the figure is not 100% always is proof the program needs improvement.'
Wrong again. Means what it says, says what means, obviously — fully self-explanatory.
Access is a problem with Medicare. That is a fact. A number of doctors refuse to take new patients and even drop existing patients. That is a fact. Too bad if it violates mythical rules some have made up.
“It just proves they're popular enough that their plate is full.”
Do you actually believe that? (And you dare misuse the word “weird”?)
“And again, what do you care? If doctors won't accept healthy new opt-in Medicare patients, the program will fail and I think you'd love that. I believe it will be hugely popular.”
Apparently you haven't been reading or understanding much of what has been posted on this site. (Maybe because your mind was made up long ago.)
* * *
“What I've never seen is a definition of 'taking new patients'.”
Normally there is no time period given, but it means new patients wanting to be seen by a doctor or hire one as their regular doctor are accepted or rejected. (If Medicare is not accepted, presumably the patients go elsewhere.) A number of doctors do not accept (i.e., they reject) new Medicare patients. As with access to health care in general, this varies from place to place and from specialty to specialty.
The most recent nation-wide acceptance data is from SK&A:
83% of U.S. medical offices accept Medicare and 65% accept Medicaid.
large practices with 26 or more physicians are more likely to accept Medicare
SK&A also found that acceptance rates vary by physician specialty. Specialties with the highest Medicare acceptance rates are podiatry (97.6%), thoracic surgery (97.5%) and colon-rectal surgery (97%). Specialties with the lowest Medicare acceptance rates are occupational medicine (16%), holistic medicine (23.2%) and bariatrics (27.7%).
http://www.pr.com/press-release/188966
CS, here's the thing. Private insurance doesn't like old people. They're too costly. So in many cases it's a matter of whether a physician wants to drop any patient who turns 65 or just not serve older patients. It's their choice. But as the option doesn't force anyone to choose Medicare, it's just like a private insurer. You look at their provider network and if there aren't good docs who accept it, or are “out of network” you look elsewhere.
Look at the title of your thread. And why did you begin it?
The title of my post is “Huzza, Huzza, Harry Reid!” And I wrote it in praise of the letter that Reid wrote to Mitch McConnell, telling him that the Democrats were definitely going to use reconciliation to pass the sidecar of fixes to the Senate bill that already passed.
Now that I've answered your question, can you answer mine?
1. Harry Reid's wife and daughter have been involved in an auto accident. Hopefully they're okay.
2. Hang onto your Che Guevara beret, rather than throwing it aloft in joy, Kathy.
Parliamentarian: Obama must sign Senate bill before fixes are passed
I *was* very tired last night, but I was not purposely looking to misread anyone's comments. I have never done that, although it may appear so to others who are not in my head.
Having re-read, I do understand what the point was now, but I want to add that the way DLS set up the separate elements of his comment made the meaning rather unclear. Listing the auto accident and throwing up my hat in joy as numbers 1 and 2 implies a connection, especially when the next line, about the parliamentarian, is NOT numbered, thus clearly suggesting it's a separate item.
Agree or disagree, but that is why I misunderstood (that, and the fact it was very late at night).
I am glad it was just tired.
The only reason I thought maybe otherwise that it was obvious and clear to me that they were separate items (they were separated and numbered) is sometimes you tend to read in the most negative possible light, and make connections where none exist, particularly with posters and viewpoints you do not agree with. I have felt that myself from you at times.
That said, it is good to be back and bantering with you. You have never shied away from a good argument (or even bad ones sometimes!)
AR
I'm glad you're back, too. And I have a question. Can I refer to you as Austin, or AR, or do you prefer I use your current screen name?
Austin or AR, if you please. One day I may change back again. We will see.
The service cost of medicare per person is not $7000, it's closer to $12,000 and rising about 4-5% annually. I don't have any ideological problem against opening up medicare to others as long as certain conditions are met.
Somewhere near 40% of private insurance is nonprofit. Almost all employer-provided insurance is non-profit. Medicare is nonprofit for a few more years, then it becomes a deficit health care entitlement.
That's great you have good options for medicare providers. Where do you live? A lot of people live in places with much worse options than you, especially people in rural areas.
But the fact remains that Rep. Grayson's bill doesn't do what he claims.
“I've asked before. Prove that. Quote the clause that prevents targeted taxation and targeted tax breaks, because the Bush tax cuts, and ALL tax law is targeted to specific goals.”
It isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. It IS, however, implied. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment provides for EQUAL taxation of exports/imports. The 16th Amendment allows for an income tax, but after countless SCOTUS cases, remains silent on equity. Why, then, would we NOT imply equity into it? The entire Constitution is based upon that precept.
May I remind you, and all of us, that there was no income tax prior to the Civil War. It was first introduced as a 3% FLAT tax. Then the Socialist Labor Party, Progressive Party, and (later) Democratic Party introduced their graduated tax rates since the rich, in their mind, must be forced to pay for those who are not – something they would STILL do in a flat tax arrangement.
I answered your question already, Kathy.
Must I again?
Don't be so quick to toss your hat into the air and celebrate Harry Reid's latest achievement.
Parliamentarian: Obama must sign Senate bill before fixes are passed
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/new…