Will the U.S. enact a comprehensive health care plan in 2009?

PROMISES, PROMISES: Indian health care's victims
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_on_go_ot/us_health_care_s_forgotten
CROW AGENCY, Mont. - Ta'Shon Rain Little Light, a happy little girl who loved to dance and dress up in traditional American Indian clothes, had stopped eating and walking. She complained constantly to her mother that her stomach hurt.

When Stephanie Little Light took her daughter to the Indian Health Service clinic in this wind-swept and remote corner of Montana, they told her the 5-year-old was depressed.

Ta'Shon's pain rapidly worsened and she visited the clinic about 10 more times over several months before her lung collapsed and she was airlifted to a children's hospital in Denver. There she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, confirming the suspicions of family members.

A few weeks later, a charity sent the whole family to Disney World so Ta'Shon could see Cinderella's Castle, her biggest dream. She never got to see the castle, though. She died in her hotel bed soon after the family arrived in Florida.

"Maybe it would have been treatable," says her great-aunt, Ada White, as she stoically recounts the last few months of Ta'Shon's short life. Stephanie Little Light cries as she recalls how she once forced her daughter to walk when she was in pain because the doctors told her it was all in the little girl's head.

Ta'Shon's story is not unique in the Indian Health Service system, which serves almost 2 million American Indians in 35 states.

On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is "don't get sick after June," when the federal dollars run out. It's a sick joke, and a sad one, because it's sometimes true, especially on the poorest reservations where residents cannot afford health insurance. Officials say they have about half of what they need to operate, and patients know they must be dying or about to lose a limb to get serious care.
...
[More at the link...]

(Brought to you by the same people who want to control your US health care choices)

typical of the emotional dog-logic relied upon by single-payer opponents...who are simply the same people who lack the critical thinking skills to realize that the GOP has been selling them down the river for 30 years with the simple promise of "looking out for their family values", while their economy, health, environment, prestige, society and crucially, their education system has been looted and dismantled beyond repair. (but lacking critical thinking skills precludes discovery of that unpleasant fact.) you throw them a bone and they happily gnaw at it the rest of the day, picturing saddam or obama, while their masters go about their vampire machinations.
[yeah, it's not a GOP morality problem, its a sociopathic problem. it's just happens that there's a home for that in the GOP, built on a voter base that if you say you're for the "family values", ALL is forgiven. (bc, really , who else gives these folks 2 seconds of serious attention, aside from a paid phychologist? _nobody_ else, that's who.]

but on the topic, a first-world health insurance system is unlikely to get past the sociopathic blood-sucking senators who would cut off their own dicks before cutting off the health care gravy train their paymasters currently enjoy. get real, the USA invaded Iraq to allay any doubts, there are no limits for an Empire on the skids.

Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135582/Man-pulls-13-teeth-pliers-NHS-dentist.html
A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients.

Iraq War veteran Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment so instead took the drastic action to remove 13 of his teeth that were giving him severe pain.

The 42-year-old, from Beverley, East Yorkshire, had not had his teeth looked at since seeing the army dentist in 2003. He had not been registered with a dentist of his own since 2001.
[More at the link...]

take 2 aspirins.

More Obama quotes for Linda Douglass to refute:
The Public Plan Deception - It's Not About Choice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E

Good point. She is desperately trying to disguise the idea that the proponents of this "health reform" bill view the weak, elderly, and unborn as "shovel ready projects".

Thanks N/N, I hadn't thought of myself as a "shovel ready project" but I guess I am. I'm having a birthday later this month and my first 2 birthday cards were from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, and a Reverse Mortgage Co. Life does get interesting. Things I just never expected.

Happy Birthday cici!

I wish you a prosperous year ahead, and many more after that! :-)

Today's Featured Joke:

Q - Why did Obama hire Linda Douglass?
A - Because before he was the POTUS he had to wing it without the TOTUS 8^o

Tired doctors urged to beat fatigue with caffeine

SIX cups of coffee - that's the State Government antidote to sleep-deprived doctors killing and harming their patients in a haze of exhaustion.

The astonishing remedy forms part of Queensland Health's new doctor fatigue policy, currently being rolled out in public hospitals.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26040339-952,00.html

According to a 2005 study of 39 million patient records, 241,280 deaths during Medicare hospitalizations were attributable to one or more common preventable medical errors. In each year from 2001 through 2003, the study found that the number of medical errors or "patient safety incidents" at America's hospitals was approximately 1.18 million, with a cost to Medicare of nearly $3 billion annually.

http://www.healthgrades.com/media/DMS/pdf/DHAPSNationalReleaseFINAL4May022005.pdf

According to Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), as many as 98,000 patient deaths occur each year in U.S. healthcare facilities as a result of preventable medical errors. Also, IOM and IHI report preventable medical errors impact at least five million Americans annually, costing more than $17-21 billion.

http://www.ihi.org/ihi

"180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury, the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every 2 days"

"The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate is 553,251. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. "

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm

(disclosure: I don't want to make the US change their health care system. I only want to say that criticizing foreign health care systems, often describing simply individual cases, are null-arguments, which do not make sense to argue against a reform of your own system.)

siting cases of other govt run health care mistakes are null-arguments, which do not make sense to argue against a reform of your own system huh??? when the reform being talked about invovles a GOVT run plan it makes good sense to me. those are links refering to mistakes made by medical personal. NOT health insurance companies. for those of you who DON'T know whats being proposed in the USA, its health insurance reform NOT medical personal reform.

kinda interesting that the "yes" option is only at 39% sept 9th. seems like HD'rs don't have much confindence in congress getting a bill passed. it will be interesting to see what obama says or don't say wensday night.

"those are links refering to mistakes made by medical personal."
exactly. and it doesn't matter if the system in which these people work is govt run. humans tend to make mistakes. finally we agree on something.

psst the other links on this question refer to govt policy decisons, NOT human error. your using links to that refer to human mistakes as the reason to overhaul the whole health insurance industry. you need to provide info that the govt ruin health care in america is better than the private sector. so far obama can't do so. he wants to spend $900+ billon to cover the 10-15% that aren't covered.

well i watched the big speech and nothing new was in it. he did admit some of the details still needs worked out. thats a good way to get the public to support his plan. gonna be an interesting next month and a half. if the vote was held today the govt option couldn't pass the senate, even if they used the reconciliation option.

During Obama's speech this evening, Representative Joe Wilson shouted at the President. Nice. Keep it classy, Wilson. Keep. It. Class-say. Ugh. Joe Wilson, where did you learn your manners? Didn't anyone ever tell you that you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar, or, um, shouting at the President of the United States?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for discourse and expression, and all for standing up for the things in which we believe. Yes. Howevah, shouting like that? Hi, please. So unproductive! So... gauche.
Manners aren't tricky. Being well-mannered is really a matter of behaving courteously in a given situation. But, I realize such things are easier said than done for some and so, lucky for Rep. Wilson and other folks with impulse-control challenges, yours truly happens to be really into etiquette and social customs as a topic of contemporary discussion, and willing to help.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/life-style/2009/09/joe-wilson-lets-dust-off-our-manners-shall-we.html

Is this a "right wing problem"?

As many are pointing out, this is hardly a "right wing problem". Democrats boo'd Bush. I've often watched presidential speeches to congress (by both Democrat and Republican presidents), and thought "how rude" as congressmen muttered loudly, or clapped in ways that were obviously staged by the whole of the opposing party (they typically get the text of his speech in advance) and intended to embarass the president. Wilson was just a bit more obvious about it, for not having arranged to have his whole party engage in with his protest. And no way was it a spontaneous emotional outburst, as he now tries to make it sound.

I'd much prefer that they set rules that prohibit ANY demonstrations of approval or disapproval during the speech. It fragments speeches into tiny sound bites and makes them run 2-3x as long. Let them applaud or sit silent at the end, if they wish.

@tomcraver;

Yeah, kruijs knows it is not a "right wing problem". He likes to have fun at the expense of conservatives, but he is more intelligent than the run-of-the-mill liberal with selective amnesia.

While we are on the topic, I am thinking of several analogous circumstances:
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) called President George W Bush "The worst president ever" because he “has done his very best to destroy Medicare”. (Now we have a President trying his best to destroy the entire American healthcare system!)

Then there is Congressman Al Franken (D-MN) on the David Letterman show who said, "Bush lied to us to take us to war" - he even wrote a book to put it in writing, ignoring the fact that his assertion was the lie, and most people can remember the events that led to the War on Terror. The fact that Al Qaeda echoed the same falsehood in their videos is significant.

Of course some people are offended by the truth, and want this Representative to apologize. They probably have never seen British Parliament when the action heats up! LOL The actual word "lie" would not be used, however the frank exchange of opinions is difficult to parallel.

I am just glad it was not anything like the Swiss liberal protest at http://de.video.yahoo.com/watch/1119423324/

if you don't pass health care reform people will continue to die.

a quote from obama during his speech. is he saying if you pass HCR people won't die?

is that a "left wing" theory?

I am just glad it was not anything like the Swiss liberal Extreme-left groups protest

fixed that for you. by the way, didn't you find anything newer almost 2 years? isn't quite convincing.

"Right-wing violence is much greater threat in the United States, where there is virtually no violence from left-wing groups. The threat has become much greater with the election of Barack Obama, and the toxic mixture of right-wing hate radio/TV and guns is already leading to deadly acts, such as the assassination of a prominent abortion doctor last weekend."

"The Southern Poverty Law Center carefully tracks hate incidents around the country, and they've seen a significant uptick in violence and threats since the inauguration. While we can hope this will die down in time as people make their peace with the new status quo, we also need to be aware that there's a pattern where things go the other way -- that these events will embolden the right to commit bigger acts of thuggery, and organize on a broader scale for actual domestic terrorism. "

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/04/far-rights-first-100-days-shifting-into.html

@kruijs:

LOL - you quote the leftwing radical group Southern Poverty Law Center as an unbiased authority?! That does say something right there!

For the record, the US is no different than the majority of other countries in the world - the American conservatives are not the threat that wishful thinking liberals may want to make them out to be:
A liberal bit off a conservative's finger in a health care protest: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAkLGsyNutX4LzUQhcc2zUSHXqYgD9AG2CGO2
Pittsburgh Steels Itself for G-20 Protests (Not likely to be conservatives) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125262667129301469.html
"masked or hooded youths throwing projectiles" (nope, probably not conservatives) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125223614100589205.html
Abortion protester murdered today I am going to guess again that the perp wasn't conservative http://www.argus-press.com/articles/2009/09/11/news/1news1.txt

Animal rights activists set on fire the Austrian vacation home of Novartis CEO Dr. Daniel Vasella
Ericsson CEO Kurt Hellstroem received a mailed death threat along with a bullet cartridge (from a capitalist loving conservative? I doubt it...)

More news:
Wild thing: Animal rights terrorism on rise http://newsok.com/wild-thing-animal-rights-terrorism-on-rise/article/3393349
SEIU Thug Who Beat Up Tea Party Protester Is Asking For Workers Compensation Benefits http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/431329.asp
Anti-Pollution Rioters Clash with Police in China http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/anti-pollution-riots-china.php

who demanded me to quote "unbiased authority" sources? I mean, your sources aren't any better (although you were trying very hard here)

thanks for all those selected counter quotes, from reliable unbiased authoritative sources.

still, the problem I approached originally wasn't about physical violence but about manners and behavior.

So, kruijs, do you even read what you are copying and pasting?

You mention "violence" 3 (three) times in your comment that you are now saying is not about violence. You assert that left wing groups have "virtually no violence" (your words, not mine)... and then you equate my news sources with your left-wing commentary as non-authoritative.

Just saying...

my comment (comment #19) was a response to your comment (comment #17) which had this link to a video showing violent protesters. your comment (comment #17) in the first place was in response to my comment (comment #15) which was not about violence at all.

yes, I am saying that it's not about violence. sorry if I confused you by answering to your post.

and "treehugger.com" is a news source? and whatever is "argus press"?

kruijs:
hmm... so, is this about government run health care, or about violence? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4085020865238983998# (ok, just kidding don't click on that link)

Think about this. When I quote a liberally biased source such as treehugger.com, which way would you expect the news to be slanted? It is a case of "hostile witness" which is very effective. When you quote Southern Poverty Law Center to support a liberal complaint, the bias is apparent, canceling out much of their point when taken at face value.

hear hear

please stop posting any commentary from WND,

because the bias is apparent, canceling out much of their point when taken at face value, your just wasting server resources and my time.

thanks

LOL - There you go again, shunning the whole point that I plainly wrote in my explanation, (which was in reply to #23).

I think you like to contort statements, so just to humor you, here is more of that kind of action - you are probably already familiar with it, but for a reminder: http://www.youtube.com/v/d3SFEY6ONv0

Have a great weekend :-)

ups, sorry. I forgot such conclusions are meant to exclude the right wing media - of course. naturally, they have other standards.

The House passed a bill this evening. So there's no good reason to support these two alternatives:

No; a bill passes the Senate but not the House. 2%
No; neither the House nor Senate passes a bill.

That still leaves plenty of options, depending on what the Senate does.

Be careful.

From the background:
"To be considered a comprehensive health care plan, it should be intended to reduce the number of uninsured people in the U.S. to no more than 10 million."

"It (HR 3962) provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul


Current U.S. population: 307,884,335
96%: 295,568,961.6
Balance left uninsured: 12,315,373.4

From the background:
"To be considered a comprehensive health care plan, it should be intended to reduce the number of uninsured people in the U.S. to no more than 10 million."

Sorry, forgot the link for the census numbers:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

this is a headache waiting to happen. the senate ain't gonna pass what the house did, so option 4 is also a good bet.

Indeed, DD....IF the Senate does anything before the end of the year.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/11/senate_health-care_debate_stil.html

I'm going with #5

#2 Also,
Perhaps the GOP or "sociopathic blood-sucking senators" as you have referred to them have a deep rooted faith in capitalism. Private companies can not compete with government programs that are not required to make a profit. Neither the GOP nor I have faith in the government managing the program correctly.
Look at the failures in the stimulus and “cash for clunkers” programs. In “cash for clunkers” there were loopholes that allowed for the purchase of golf carts. Recent statistics even revealed that it would have been cheaper to give away cars than it did for the management and failures in the program. With the stimulus, Barack promised to save jobs and bring shovel ready projects. These are great promises, as there is no way to prove failure. The money could even be used as a payoff for those who assisted in his election campaign, which he has not realized ended over a year ago. ACORN received stimulus money subsequent to being involved in criminal activity. Bush was not fiscally conservative which is why many independents and some Republicans voted for Obama this last election.
Saturday Night Live has even noticed Barack has accomplished nothing but spending our tax money like a drunken sailor. As for health care, what happens to those without insurance today when they go to the hospital? They are treated like anyone else and the tax payers foot the bill. We do not need sweeping healthcare changes as most people have health care and are happy with it. I would support a different solution as long as it does not involve a government option. I see no need for a huge sweeping change when the majority of the country realizes they have the best care in the world.

A few ‘major mainstream news sources citing the House bill’s coverage of 96% of Americans...that computes to a tad over 12 million still uninsured (note the 10 million qualifier in the background of this market):

“Few progressives think the $1.2 trillion House bill, which covers 96 percent of Americans and provides the strongest public option left standing, will ever make it into law.”
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/11/house-health-care-bill-may-be-left-it-gets

“It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BR59EO0.html

"We are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who added that under the bill, 96% of Americans will be covered at a cost just under $900 billion over 10 years.
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/241350/topic/WS_HLM2_LED/Houses-Revamped-Health-Reform-Bill-Would-Cover-96-of-Americans.html

The legislation would insure 36 million more Americans in the next 10 years, covering 96 percent of all Americans, Pelosi said.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/house-democrats-unveil-health-care-bill-public-option/Story?id=8946527&page=2

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BR4CBG0

You make a good point, Erik. As defined in the way I wrote this market (and wish I hadn't), the House bill doesn't meet the definition of "comprehensive."

@mvguy: how the h... did you come up with that definition of "comprehensive"??? This is as comprehensive as you'll ever get. This sure turned out to be a trick question! Are you a teacher?

We need to have an option saying bill passed, not comprehensive enough for mvguy....:-)

Actually, Tuff, I was trying to avoid problems! At the time I wrote the market, there seemed to be the possibility that the Congress might do some sort of piecemeal reform, and I didn't want that to count as a "yes." That's why I defined "comprehensive." At the time, the talk was about a plan that would insure everybody, maybe leaving out "only" a million or so. So the definition seemed reasonable at the time. But the Congress as lowered its sights. I agree with the decision to void the market.

And if you want my honest opinion, I don't think that a plan that leaves 12 million people out is worth passing.

Yes, I agree, we need to have everybody covered. Our health care system is an international embarrassment and a crime against humanity. I would say that what they are doing sure beats the inaction of the past 50 years. In our imperfect democracy, sometimes you have to take what you can get....

This market should not have been voided. The reasons are numerous.

The hubdub god states, “In future markets shouldn't place specific numbers on number of uninsured since that is a highly debatable statistic that makes settlement nearly impossible.”

This is false.
After passage of HR3962, numerous searches with an ‘open’ percentage of population covered, I could find only one figure, 96%, stated by both the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. John Dingell.

The background of this market clearly states what qualifies as a comprehensive health care plan.

The math:
Current U.S. population: 307,884,335 http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
96%: 295,568,961.6
Balance left uninsured: 12,315,373.4

But, even if you subscribe to the difficulty in settlement diatribe, there’s more. Procedurally, all options are still possible.

#1) Yes.
In conference, the Senate and House reach agreement on a bill that meets the 10 million qualifier and the President signs it in 2009.

#2) No; A bill passes the House but not the Senate.
Although HR3962 does not meet the 10 million qualifier another House bill could be forthcoming. Probable? No. Procedurally possible? Yes.

#3) No; A bill passes the Senate but not the House.
Certainly still a probability that this could meet the 10 million qualifier, as there is no bill yet on the floor.

#4) No; Neither the House nor Senate passes a bill.
Obvious, I would hope.

#5) No; Bill passes Congress, but Obama vetoes it.
See #1

This market was voided prematurely, at the very least.

I would argue that it was voided for lack of aspirin in the medicine cabinet of the Hubdub god.

Can we void HR3962 now?

“We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken to communism.” - Nikita Khrushchev

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com that because he is not a constitutional scholar he was “not going to be able to answer that question” of where specifically the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.

“Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked Nelson.

“Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) says he is “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority to make individuals purchase health insurance, as the health care bills in both the House and Senate require.

When asked if there was a specific part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make people buy health insurance, Akaka said: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

When asked where specifically the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance, Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.) said that he “would have to check the specific sections” but said that it was like making people “sign up for the draft.”

at least he tried to answer. pelosi refuses to answer the question. she says the question is silly and doesn't deserve an answer.

<satire>

"Conservative arguments against President Obama are becoming increasingly silly. They oppose Obama rescuing businesses despite all the jobs on the line, they're against government taking control of health care from soulless insurance companies, and they oppose increased taxes on energy consumption despite the sorry state of the environment.

And why do they oppose these most sensible actions? Because of their irrational, brain-dead obsession with liberty.

Of course, everyone likes freedom -- to a point -- but there are a number of loud, stupid Americans who just take it to ridiculous extremes. They hoard their freedoms like greedy little dwarfs hoarding gold when they have little actual use for most of it.

People need rules and order and guidance, but they hardly ever need liberty. Liberty doesn't feed your family. Liberty doesn't heal you when you're sick. Liberty doesn't educate your children. A strong government can do all those things, but apparently that's against liberty. ... Just look at this ludicrous debate over health care reform.

Of course the government should provide health care for everyone; how obvious can anything be? The government has the money and smart people working for everyone's interests to make sure all get health care, so why would anyone be against that? Because apparently people aren't 'free' to make their health care choices for themselves. ... Real freedom is not having to worry about health care, and that's what you get when you have the government take it over. Yes, you'll have little control over who gets what kind of care, but some people will just have to suffer some for the betterment of the whole.

The advantage of having the government in control is that it makes sure the fewest number suffer, and those that do aren't particularly important. ... Most of the civilized world has moved beyond this uncompromising view of 'freedom' -- if they were ever foolish enough to adopt it in the first place. Can you think of any other country that would permit its citizens to have guns like America does? Of course not; that's beyond moronic. People know freedom is a dangerous, scary thing, and you have to be careful how much you tolerate."

Frank J. Fleming

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/brain-dead-conservatives-obsessed-with-freedom/?print=1