manufactured anger

[paul.karen]

Depending on what news channel's you watch you will get a variety of ways people are looking at the debates on healthcare, cap and trade ect ect.

It seems it is ok for Obama and his PLANNED community activists to plan weeks ahead of time to go out and protest.  Groups like Acorn who have professionally made signs and intimidate people and are called community activists are ok.
But if a grass roots movement of people with hand made signs goes to protest's  like the tea parties or recently people at town hall meetings try to express there opinions it has to be that they were forced to do so and are only doing so out of hatred.
They (many democrats and the President) say it is FAKE and Manufactured and it isn't real people but puppets ect ect.  They are to well dressed to be real people, maybe people on there way to work?  Maybe if they all had on red shirts that said acorn it would be a different news story.

So i wanted to see a vote to get opinions from REAL people like us.

Are people who disagree with the president Bad people?  Are we fake? Should we not be heard?  Is he not our president or just the president to those who agree with him?

[Jean]

He is just the president to those who agree with him. I think the notion that there are are a lot of plants is ludicrous.

[Hemodoc]

The bottom line is that most Americans are satisfied with their health care.  Other nations still envy our ready access to the latest technologies.  It is quite difficult to criticize a plan that is not even a plan when you consider the competing plans in the Democratic party alone.

We are already paying for those that do not have health insurance with our increased costs that take this into account  Was that really a $500 bandaide?  No, it is diverting the costs of those that never pay for their health costs.  Further, the government makes it illegal to turn anyone away at the door, which is good.  But they pass that expense onto the hospitals without a government subsidy for those patients.  Once again, for decades, the hospitals have been passing that on to the paying customer already.

What is truly frightening is the possibilty of completely ruining the private sector health industry and supplant it with a government controlled health system for all.  Is that where we all want to go.

Lastly, I heard an opinion on the amount of money that American's spend on health care compared to all other nations.  It is because we can afford to spend it that we do spend it.  Is our government interested in health care reform or instead is it a health care take over?  So far, all that I have heard out of Washington does not give me any confidence that they will really give those of us with renal disease access to the best that can be offered.  Further, you need to understand that we are no longer looking at individuals and maximizing their care.  Take a look around the literature and you will find that we have entered into population based medicine that in reality is nothing more that "herd" medicine.  This excepts the sacrifices of some of the individuals for that of the total herd.  I truly do not believe that most Americans understand this fundamental shift in health care policy.  It is indeed to most Americans, a very unAmerican idea where we have long held the asperations of the individual as the greatest public good.

For instance, take a look at Ezekiel Emmanuels writings over the last two decades and then ask where the man in charge of health care reform wants to take us.

No, not mobs, just concerned Americans, Democrats, Independents, and yes Virginia, Republicans as well.  I don't recalll anywhere in the constitution that the minority party loses it's rights when they lose an election.  I understand that there is even an email address to turn in "fishy" comments against the health care reform.  Well so be it.  But I am not at all comfortable with the events happening that could radically alter the US health system as imperfect as it is.

[jbeany]

Can I chose two options?  Personally, I think it's part plants and part upset people.  But honestly, does it matter if they are "planted" if they are saying what regular people are thinking?  Oh, I realize we're all pretty cynical about anyone who stands up in a crowd these days - too much crap going on behind the scenes to take anyone at face value anymore - but that doesn't mean the message the plants are passing on is not a real one.

I voted for him, but I think he ought to remember that his "sweeping" victory was still just barely over half of the US.  Nearly half voted against him, and don't agree with what he stands for.  So why be surprised that people are standing up in public to disagree with him?

It's a democracy - we're supposed to debate things!

[BigSky]

Most democrats in Congress are out of touch with the American People on this issue.

Its almost comical how these people in Congress are try to keep people from speaking out at these events.   


Might be a good time to invest in tar and feathers as to remind the politicians just what the American People will do if they do not listen.

[mikey07840]

Most democrats in Congress are out of touch with the American People on this issue.

Its almost comical how these people in Congress are try to keep people from speaking out at these events.   


Might be a good time to invest in tar and feathers as to remind the politicians just what the American People will do if they do not listen.

BigSky, as an ultra liberal democrat, I am amused that I agree with you totally. I think I need to stock up on the tar and feathers. I want a change in health care, but I want to hear every opinion. I want lively debate. The more we talk things out and debate the important issues of the day, the better the solutions will be.

[Rerun]

We can't have Health Care Reform without COST reform.  We need to put a cap on prices.  We need prices!  HELL you never know what a procedure will cost until it is over.  Where else do you go where you get something without know what it costs? 

Grocery Store?  NO
Gas Station?  NO
Dentist?  NO
Eye Doctor?  NO
Insurance?  NO

There would be more out rage if everyone knew it was $10,000 a day to be hospitalized just waiting around for surgery!!  But, by the time it is over and you get the bill there is nothing you can do about it.

Again, I have Medicare and Blue X, but I still see the costs as they come through the mail and it is unbelievable!

[Jean]

I agree with you Rerun. These danged insurance companies are ridiculous. But, mostly, the hospitals and such just charge you outrageously for tests and such. I know there are costs and the machines are expensive, but how many times are we supposed to pay for a machine. Doesn't it ever get paid for?

[Bill Peckham]

No, not mobs, just concerned Americans, Democrats, Independents, and yes Virginia, Republicans as well.  I don't recalll anywhere in the constitution that the minority party loses it's rights when they lose an election.  I understand that there is even an email address to turn in "fishy" comments against the health care reform.  Well so be it.  But I am not at all comfortable with the events happening that could radically alter the US health system as imperfect as it is.

Non constituents coming to town hall meetings and shouting down constituents is some kind of Constitutional right?

How is screaming "Just say no" helpful in any way?

What is truly frightening is the possibilty of completely ruining the private sector health industry and supplant it with a government controlled health system for all.  Is that where we all want to go.

Come on. Most of us have Medicare. Do they choose your doc? Does Medicare run dialysis clinics? There are three bills in the House and 1 (and half) Bills in the Senate. They all pretty much do the same thing - reform health Insurance. This fear of "Government Control" is not based on the legislation.

There are two examples of government run healthcare in the US - in other words examples where the federal government owns the hospitals and pays everyone from the docs to the custodians - the DOD and the VA. Both of those provide the best healthcare in the world, at least they're meant to ... there isn't a single member of Congress that doesn't support medical care for the troops.

The example of government provided health INSURANCE is Medicare. Are those who shout Just Say NO in favor of ending Medicare? Would the nation's elderly, disabled and dialyzors be better off without Medicare? I don't think so.

As a pure political commentary I don't think the American voters are persuaded by people shouting "Just Say NO" when they know friends, family and neighbors that have been driven into bankruptcy because of routine medical care. I think this is another example of the frenzy of the 24 hour news cycle.

[BigSky]

Non constituents coming to town hall meetings and shouting down constituents is some kind of Constitutional right?

Could you provide actual proof that these people at all these various meetings around the country were non constituents.

How is screaming "Just say no" helpful in any way?

It drives the point home.  These politicians ramble on with their propaganda point by point but do not want anyone to address each and every bs point and think the public should only get to make a short comment in the end.

This pisses people off when they try it and the People have had enough of it.  If Congress cannot read the damn bills they shouldnt be passing them. 

Come on. Most of us have Medicare. Do they choose your doc? Does Medicare run dialysis clinics? There are three bills in the House and 1 (and half) Bills in the Senate. They all pretty much do the same thing - reform health Insurance. This fear of "Government Control" is not based on the legislation.

There are two examples of government run healthcare in the US - in other words examples where the federal government owns the hospitals and pays everyone from the docs to the custodians - the DOD and the VA. Both of those provide the best healthcare in the world, at least they're meant to ... there isn't a single member of Congress that doesn't support medical care for the troops.

The example of government provided health INSURANCE is Medicare. Are those who shout Just Say NO in favor of ending Medicare? Would the nation's elderly, disabled and dialyzors be better off without Medicare? I don't think so.

As a pure political commentary I don't think the American voters are persuaded by people shouting "Just Say NO" when they know friends, family and neighbors that have been driven into bankruptcy because of routine medical care. I think this is another example of the frenzy of the 24 hour news cycle.

Medicare micromanages clinics, hospitals and dialysis centers.  Also lets not forget only 40 million people are using medicare services.  Sure Medicare is good, but lets face it, they do not even pay actual cost for dialysis services but make the providers eat that cost.

The VA is incompetent and thousands of vets refuse to use it or have problems with service they do receive.
 I speak of personal experience.  I wouldnt trust those c***suckers to treat my dog.

[Bill Peckham]

How is screaming "Just say no" helpful in any way?

It drives the point home.  These politicians ramble on with their propaganda point by point but do not want anyone to address each and every bs point and think the public should only get to make a short comment in the end.

This pisses people off when they try it and the People have had enough of it.  If Congress cannot read the damn bills they shouldnt be passing them. 

The video I've seen have included people shouting down people asking questions. It's intimidating for most people to ask a question at a town meeting add in the likelihood that they're going to heckled and booed and people aren't going to put themselves in that position. That's not useful from society's point of view and I have to say from just a pure political point of view, looking at how this games out, have the shouters persuaded anyone? Have Representatives reconsidered their positions after having their events disrupted? More likely the effect has been to marginalize people with concerns - there are elements that do raise concerns, many of the amendments that have been included in the various Bills resulted from constituent concerns but now everyone with concerns has less access to the process. This is a tactic that looks to be self defeating. This is looking like the start of a Republican pattern and from a pure political analysis this will hurt in the 2010 Congressional elections.

If the VA is so bad why aren't the shouters suggesting we simply buy our vets health insurance through the local HMO? The vets have a lot of pull in Congress, they seem to be able to work well within the existing system given that no one any where has instantaneous access to healthcare in every situation (except those on active duty)

Let's remember though that the VA's relevance to this discussion is only to illustrate what it means to have socialized healthcare which should then allow anyone interested in the issue know that there is no bill in Congress that is proposing Socialized Healthcare. The main debate is around how to and/or whether to, subsidize private insurance for the working poor. That's the $1 trillion over ten year cost you've no doubt heard about. The problem for people who want to cover the working poor is how to pay for it. Healthcare is expensive so subsidizing people's healthcare is expensive.

The Public Option enters the debate as a way to make healthcare less expensive, the comparative effectiveness research that has been a part of Medicare since 2002 is an attempt at checking increasing healthcare costs. If the schemes to make healthcare less expensive can't or won't work then you have to pay for it through increasing revenue ie increase taxes. Where does just say no enter into this?

Keeping things as they are is not a good idea. Do we really want to leave things as they are for another generation? I and I think a majority of voters say no to that.

Nothing in any of these bills in Congress is substantially different from what Obama put forward in the campaign. John McCain's healthcare plan was to just say no. I don't see anything that has increased the number of people who want more of the same. It may be that 40% of the electorate wants to keep things as they are and 40 million people can certianly make a lot of noise but it still doesn't win any elections. As the Republican party continues to contract passing legislation gets easier. Conservative tactics are coming up short against Progressive strategy.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, obviously I am in complete support of optimal renal care for all.  The issue of universal access and universal coverage is a goal that I believe both of us share and advocate on a daily basis with in the confines of the renal program.  We don't disagree on the goals, only the manner in which to get there.

I believe underlying the protests is the real concern that the private health care sector could in time succumb to the public sector.  If we did not have the example of the takeovers of the banking and auto industry already this year, those fears would be greatly mitigated.

The comparative effectiveness research is also a potentially troublesome part of the package in my mind since it takes us one step further away from the long standing doctor-patient relationship where decision making has traditionally taken place.  We are heading into an era where the government will now be making bedside decisions for us.  Many like myself legitimately distrust that new relationship.  I believe this is in part what is really behind the protests.

Unfortunately, I have yet to be reassured that these fears will not come to pass.  I am quite fortunate to have lifetime medical for myself and my wife which I readily understand is a luxury that many do not have.  It is with an HMO that I know how to operate within its confines and restrictions.  My doctors have the freedom to offer me the best care available.  In the new system, population based outcomes guided by the comparative effectiveness research will become the bedside decision maker.

I must confess that I would rather be in the hands of my doctor who is open to my requests and reasoning for care options than to have to take these decisions into the realm of the political world where politicians are making my medical care plan.  For myself, that is the place of disagreement, not in the goals of universal health coverage and access, but in the methods.

It would be most interesting to see a true poll of the political spread among democrats, republicans and independents on this issue.  I believe it is more than just a one sided shouting match as many are portraying.  Getting the truth on these political issues is not easy today.

Lastly, aside from the potential of losing more control over health care decisions, the issue of the projected costs of the various bills circulating is another real source of this protest.  I believe that these issues cross political parties especially for the majority of people that already have good health insurance no matter what their political affiliation.  I don't believe that it is simply conservative vs progressive and Republican vs Democrat.  The real issue is whether these protests cross these divides.  If so, then before Congress puts a package together that will not ultimately meet the goals of improving care for all, then taking time to do true reform is a realistic request.

Once again, I am a strong advocate of optimal health for all people as I am sure you will attest by my strong dialysis advocacy.  I am just not certain at all that the current political process we see unfolding before us will give us what we all agree is the goal of health care reform.  It simply may not be what we wish and hope it will be.  That uncertainty and distrust of all these politicians is in my mind what the protests are all about.

As always Bill, I appreciate your views and your heart for improving care for all.  In this we are both in full agreement.

[BigSky]

The video I've seen have included people shouting down people asking questions.

 

Post it.

As to the VA most people do not know how it works so why would they even bring it up?  They wouldnt!

[ahamner]

...The comparative effectiveness research is also a potentially troublesome part of the package in my mind since it takes us one step further away from the long standing doctor-patient relationship where decision making has traditionally taken place.  We are heading into an era where the government will now be making bedside decisions for us.  Many like myself legitimately distrust that new relationship.  I believe this is in part what is really behind the protests.

... In the new system, population based outcomes guided by the comparative effectiveness research will become the bedside decision maker.

My father had end stage kidney failure years ago at a time when dialysis treatment was effective but was not readily available.  I remember his evaluation for acceptance as a continuing dialysis patient by a committee who task it was to decide if his life had sufficient value (comparative effectiveness perhaps?) to provide him the treatments given the shortage.  He underwent several treatments with great success while being evaluated.  He was 48 years old with no other health problems except for PKD.

One of the evaluation criteria that was used was a review of how much he was actually needed to support his family.  I was the youngest of his three children and at age 17 and graduating from high school, he was deemed expendable by the evaluating committee.  He was denied continued dialysis and sent home to die after one last treatment.  I vividly remember the last days of his life from appearing very healthy to the time kidney failure finally took its toll.  It all seemed so unfair to me but it happened.

Could something like this happen again in the name of reducing health care costs?  Will dialysis patients will be offered the "blue" pill and undergo end of life counseling to help balance the budget?   After all the plan being considered includes making big "cost savings (cuts)" in Medicare. 

[Hemodoc]

In a perfect world there would be no illness.  The best we can expect in this context is that all would have equal access to life saving treatments.  What a lasting impact your father's death must of had on all in your family.  Your post hits home even harder for me since I was likewise 48 at the time I started dialysis.  The impact upon my family in all that I would have missed and the growth in our relationships in the last 3 years is immeasurable.

I obviously support the concept and the rationale for universal access and universal coverage.  Will our current political process reach that goal?  Only time will tell since it appears most probable that universal health coverage will soon be the reality of this nation whether I agree or disagree with it.  I am simply fearful that the dynamics of population based outcomes will place dialysis patients especially at the top of the list for close scrutiny of care when compared to other "more worthy" populations such as children with a longer life expectancy.  Done properly, it is a great concept.  It is not the goal, but the methodology that is bothersome to me at present.

Nevertheless, it does appear that we shall all enter into this brave new world soon and it is my prayer that we would never again hear of tragic stories as happened to you and your father ever again.  I believe no matter what our political disagreements are, no one would disagree with this sentiment.

[Bill Peckham]

...The comparative effectiveness research is also a potentially troublesome part of the package in my mind since it takes us one step further away from the long standing doctor-patient relationship where decision making has traditionally taken place.  We are heading into an era where the government will now be making bedside decisions for us.  Many like myself legitimately distrust that new relationship.  I believe this is in part what is really behind the protests.

... In the new system, population based outcomes guided by the comparative effectiveness research will become the bedside decision maker.

My father had end stage kidney failure years ago at a time when dialysis treatment was effective but was not readily available.  I remember his evaluation for acceptance as a continuing dialysis patient by a committee who task it was to decide if his life had sufficient value (comparative effectiveness perhaps?) to provide him the treatments given the shortage.  He underwent several treatments with great success while being evaluated.  He was 48 years old with no other health problems except for PKD.

One of the evaluation criteria that was used was a review of how much he was actually needed to support his family.  I was the youngest of his three children and at age 17 and graduating from high school, he was deemed expendable by the evaluating committee.  He was denied continued dialysis and sent home to die after one last treatment.  I vividly remember the last days of his life from appearing very healthy to the time kidney failure finally took its toll.  It all seemed so unfair to me but it happened.

Could something like this happen again in the name of reducing health care costs?  Will dialysis patients will be offered the "blue" pill and undergo end of life counseling to help balance the budget?   After all the plan being considered includes making big "cost savings (cuts)" in Medicare.

Really? You are concerned that the Democratic Party would reimplement the life and death committees as a way to save money on dialysis. I am surprised that this seems plausible, or that health insurance reform will lead to compelling people to kill themselves as a cost savings measure. Where is this coming from?

The US spends more money on healthcare, per person, than any other country in the world. If other countries, that spend considerably less per person, can manage to avoid kill off their elderly why would we be forced to kill people who are sick? Why wouldn't we just pay less for pharmaceuticals? Why wouldn't we use the federal government's market power to cut Part D spending by 50% and Part A and Part B drug spending by significant margins. Would an elected body - Congress - choose to kill voters instead of cutting pharmaceutical spending? I really don't think so.

Sure cutting pharmaceutical spending would have consequences but having to find a another way to fund research is a minor inconvenience compared to killing off dialyzors. All the current Bills reflect the agreement Obama made with pharmaceutical manufacturers - that cost saving measure isn't even on the table. Taxing employee health insurance benefits is off the table. How about malpractice insurance relief - that's not on the table either. Increasing Medicare premiums isn't even on the table. Means testing Medicare Premiums isn't on the table. All these ways to pay for Medicare's current benefits are available yet off the table and yet there is still a concern that in the name of saving costs lets start killing people.

Amazing.

[Bill Peckham]

inadvertent post

[monrein]

This comment about an article in the NY Times expresses much of how I feel and cannot understand about the current health care debate.   





"I have lived in Europe, the USA (NYC and FLA) and currently live in Canada. I am a reasonably well-informed financial executive. I make my living as a capitalist.

I wouldn’t know where to begin re: the health care debate but I will make a couple of observations:

1. The USA has the finest health care in the world — bar none — provided that you have a no-limit gilt-edged money is no object health plan. Or you are rich. In my experience the 2 go hand in hand.

Failing such insurance or such boundless wealth how any rational human being with an IQ over 75 and an income below, say, $250k (forget the social compassion argument) could defend the existing system is beyond comprehension.

2. The outright lies — yes lies — that critics of health care reform spew is disturbing. The intentional misrepresentation of the Canadian and European models is outrageous. The Canadian model is flawed. There needs to be greater access to ‘private-delivery’ alternatives (which currently exist in some fields.) Having said that, since I returned to the province of Ontario in the late 1990’s until now the improvement in standards and care is staggering and in most cases matches anything I witnessed or experienced in NYC. Yes, health care is rationed here (hence a need for ancillary private care) but it is rationed everywhere — including the US. The exception being as per point #1 above. Per capita Ontario spends approximately 65% of what the consumers/taxpayers of the US/NY spend. However Ontario delivers 90% — or more — of the US standard. That is one very big financial/efficiency/productivity gap. That money gap goes to the US insurance companies, doctors, malpractice lawyers and lobbyists. The common canard about Canada etc is that “faceless bureaucrats make life or death decisions” (as opposed to, say, faceless HMO clerks). The truth is that in Canada the ‘gatekeepers’ who allocate critical care are the physicians themselves — the specialists.

3. Aside from private-payment plastic surgeons it is true you will not see many doctors in Canada driving a Rolls Royce. But you will see an awful lot driving a Benz or a Jag. Doctors here work hard and are well compensated. What we lack here is the concept that a medical degree should be attributed Venture Capitalist returns.

4. Lastly, a general observation/question (again, I really am a capitalist). Why is it that in the USA (a country I genuinely love) millions of people who barely make a living or are working class and/or just holding on to the ‘middle class’ are the most vocal — hysterical wouldn’t be an exaggeration — in defending the privileges of the rich and the corporate? Against their own self-interest I might add. Anywhere else in the western world the existing US health care tyranny would have people in the streets demanding reform — not ‘debating’ it."

— jon c

[paul.karen]

i Dint think you could find anyone who would say we dint need reform.  It has been said over and over for years buy all Americans.

Recent polls show 52% oppose obamas health plan  39% approve of it.

I find it hard to think there are five bills for healthcare floating around and no one has read any of them yet are debating them.
I find it funny that the dems cry that republicans are busing people in, when this is what they did to Bush many times over.
I find it funny that yes many REAL Americans went to town hall meetings and expressed themself vs which is a RIGHT and yes some may have been rather vocal but again it is thee right.  Same was done to Bush over and over.  I hate to reference Bush but he was bashed here many times at IHD.  And as much as i want change if Obama can stop using Bush as a scapegoat Bush should be used to show he had class when people rallied against his ideas.  He never sent out a open invitation to report anyone who went against his ideas to a internet Czar in controll of controlling Americans who dint agree with him.
I find it funny that in reality it is OBAMA who is busing in again people to intimidate anyone who disagrees with his agenda.  The town hall meetings were as usual nonviolent when the repubs were attending them.  Loud maybe but not violent.  until Obama sent out his SEIU Union thugs to intimade anyone against him.  They even beat a person up who went to speak at a rally.  He was an out of work EMT if I'm correct.
The dems say this is manufactured yet they send out ACORN with premed signs and CHANTS of intimidation at rallies that dint suit there agenda yet this is OK. 

We allwant change we dint want the government running it.
Medicare is broke social security is broke we are giving people money to buy cars now that our children's children will be paying for.

Obama is on record and has been since he was a junior senator that he WANTS a single payer system in place, socialized healthcare.
Barney frank is on record saying the best way to get a single payer system is to have an open markey that can be slowly drowned out by government.

Again 52% oppose obamas plan or all five of them.
He wants to blame firstly the republicans.  Then the Americans that dint agree with him then the insurance companies but he wont admit they have the votes needed and the reason they rant moving forward the REAL reason is that many Democrats dint even want his plan or plan.

[BigSky]

People want reform but not this reform when it comes down that is has to be rammed through without the People knowing whats in it and being able to debate it at length.

Could we at least have more time to look and it than he gave to getting a dog for his family?  Or is that too much to ask.


If he wants to fix something why not fix medicare instead of wanting to embezzle money from medicare?

Dems control Congress and could easily remove the cap on wages (106,800) that are taxed for medicare. Tax all of those multimillion dollar wages of CEO's

[Bill Peckham]

This comment about an article in the NY Times expresses much of how I feel and cannot understand about the current health care debate.   





"I have lived in Europe, the USA (NYC and FLA) and currently live in Canada. I am a reasonably well-informed financial executive. I make my living as a capitalist.

I wouldn’t know where to begin re: the health care debate but I will make a couple of observations:

1. The USA has the finest health care in the world — bar none — provided that you have a no-limit gilt-edged money is no object health plan. Or you are rich. In my experience the 2 go hand in hand.

Failing such insurance or such boundless wealth how any rational human being with an IQ over 75 and an income below, say, $250k (forget the social compassion argument) could defend the existing system is beyond comprehension.

2. The outright lies — yes lies — that critics of health care reform spew is disturbing. The intentional misrepresentation of the Canadian and European models is outrageous. The Canadian model is flawed. There needs to be greater access to ‘private-delivery’ alternatives (which currently exist in some fields.) Having said that, since I returned to the province of Ontario in the late 1990’s until now the improvement in standards and care is staggering and in most cases matches anything I witnessed or experienced in NYC. Yes, health care is rationed here (hence a need for ancillary private care) but it is rationed everywhere — including the US. The exception being as per point #1 above. Per capita Ontario spends approximately 65% of what the consumers/taxpayers of the US/NY spend. However Ontario delivers 90% — or more — of the US standard. That is one very big financial/efficiency/productivity gap. That money gap goes to the US insurance companies, doctors, malpractice lawyers and lobbyists. The common canard about Canada etc is that “faceless bureaucrats make life or death decisions” (as opposed to, say, faceless HMO clerks). The truth is that in Canada the ‘gatekeepers’ who allocate critical care are the physicians themselves — the specialists.

3. Aside from private-payment plastic surgeons it is true you will not see many doctors in Canada driving a Rolls Royce. But you will see an awful lot driving a Benz or a Jag. Doctors here work hard and are well compensated. What we lack here is the concept that a medical degree should be attributed Venture Capitalist returns.

4. Lastly, a general observation/question (again, I really am a capitalist). Why is it that in the USA (a country I genuinely love) millions of people who barely make a living or are working class and/or just holding on to the ‘middle class’ are the most vocal — hysterical wouldn’t be an exaggeration — in defending the privileges of the rich and the corporate? Against their own self-interest I might add. Anywhere else in the western world the existing US health care tyranny would have people in the streets demanding reform — not ‘debating’ it."

— jon c

It is getting harder and harder to hear what is being said over the spittle. I think though when you look back at historic legislation there has always been this sort of blind rage that is ginned up and fanned. This sort of rage was used to bash the unions from the turn of the last century to today. On the other side of the coin from the rage is the cheering e.g for anti-sedition laws, the Patriot Act. John Rockefeller Jr. was burned in effigy for proposing the Grand Tetons National Park. I think this rage will be just as hard to understand 100 years from now.

Teddy Roosevelt was driven out of the Republican Party. To this day they'll tell you Franklin Roosevelt was a communist. Civil rights legislation, the clean air act, water quality legislation - it all was said to be a threat to the world as we know it.

Medicare was said to mark the end of freedom in America. It has always been crazy talk. Now is no different.

The worry is when people believe this talk and then violently act on it. We're only six months in, the spittle will get thicker. This is a strain of America that will always be and has always been with us. We're just entering a period when it's very close to the surface.

[Zach]

Dems control Congress and could easily remove the cap on wages (106,800) that are taxed for medicare. Tax all of those multimillion dollar wages of CEO's

Actually, there is no cap on wages when it comes to the Medicare payroll tax.

It's the Social Security tax which has the wage cap, but that's another story.

From AllLaw.com
"The Medicare tax rate is 2.9% for the employee and the employer. You will withhold 1.45% of an employee's wages and pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. There is no wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to pay Medicare tax, no matter how much is earned."
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp

A little more info:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series

[Bill Peckham]

Dems control Congress and could easily remove the cap on wages (106,800) that are taxed for medicare. Tax all of those multimillion dollar wages of CEO's

Actually, there is no cap on wages when it comes to the Medicare payroll tax.

It's the Social Security tax which has the wage cap, but that's another story.

From AllLaw.com
"The Medicare tax rate is 2.9% for the employee and the employer. You will withhold 1.45% of an employee's wages and pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. There is no wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to pay Medicare tax, no matter how much is earned."
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp

A little more info:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series

Thanks Zach I didn't know that ... there goes my motivation to ever earn over $100,000.

My point stands though - there are a lot of ways to cut Medicare costs or increase Medicare revenues besides hastening people's deaths.

[Zach]

Means testing Medicare Premiums isn't on the table.

Actually, there is means testing for Medicare Part B premiums.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3272

CMS ANNOUNCES MEDICARE PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES FOR 2009

 ... As required in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, beginning in 2007 the Part B premium a beneficiary pays each month is based on his or her annual income.  Specifically, if a beneficiary’s “modified adjusted gross income” is greater than the legislated threshold amounts ($85,000 in 2009 for a beneficiary filing an individual income tax return or married and filing a separate return, and $170,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint tax return) the beneficiary is responsible for a larger portion of the estimated total cost of Part B benefit coverage.

In addition to the standard 25 percent premium, such beneficiaries now have to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount. These income-related Part B premiums have been phased-in over three years, beginning in 2007. 2009 is the first year in which affected Part B enrollees will pay the full amount of the income-related premiums. About 5 percent of current Part B enrollees are expected to be subject to the higher premium amounts...
~~~~~~~~~~
 
Monthly premiums range from $96.40 to $308.30 depending on your yearly income.

[Bill Peckham]

Means testing Medicare Premiums isn't on the table.

Actually, there is means testing for Medicare Part B premiums.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3272

CMS ANNOUNCES MEDICARE PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES FOR 2009

 ... As required in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, beginning in 2007 the Part B premium a beneficiary pays each month is based on his or her annual income.  Specifically, if a beneficiary’s “modified adjusted gross income” is greater than the legislated threshold amounts ($85,000 in 2009 for a beneficiary filing an individual income tax return or married and filing a separate return, and $170,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint tax return) the beneficiary is responsible for a larger portion of the estimated total cost of Part B benefit coverage.

In addition to the standard 25 percent premium, such beneficiaries now have to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount. These income-related Part B premiums have been phased-in over three years, beginning in 2007. 2009 is the first year in which affected Part B enrollees will pay the full amount of the income-related premiums. About 5 percent of current Part B enrollees are expected to be subject to the higher premium amounts...
~~~~~~~~~~
 
Monthly premiums range from $96.40 to $308.30 depending on your yearly income.

Thanks Zach, that should have been means test Medicare Part D which is being floated around http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd062209.html

It's Part D that currently represents the bulk of Medicare's unfunded obligations.