Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (11009)	11/4/2009 10:41:55 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Has i-node revealed to this thread that he runs a business that directly profits (as a leech profits) from the current, broken health care system we have now? I'll reveal something. Obama, right after taking office, shoved legislation down the throats of Americans that will provide every doctor in the country up to $40,000 to spend on EMR systems. And they're going to take every penny of it. So, yeah, my business is good right now. Physicians are very motivated to spend money with my business and thousands like it around the country. If I believed this policy was good for our country, I'd be elated because I'm making more money than I ever have and I'm likely to make several times as much over the next couple of years. Thanks to Obama. But the truth is it is wasted money. There is no reason I can see that the government ought to be buying software for physicians offices while adding trillions to our national debt for our children to pay off.

To: bentway who wrote (11009)	11/4/2009 12:05:12 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

This is an evidence based forum. The subject header specifically requests that links to all stories be provided. In my world, people post LINKS to prove they're telling the truth when they make assertions. So far you have not provided any evidence of any assertion on this subject. You have made strong assertions, yet not provided a shred of evidence. I will leave it to the reader to determine if you are living in the world you describe. Has i-node revealed to this thread that he runs a business that directly profits from the current, health care system we have now? I believe he has. We have several contributors who are members of the larger healthcare community. They tend to be better informed than the rest of us. The current debate is an interesting one. The people who prefer socialized medicine have yet to close the sale. If you wish to explain why we should accept a reduction in service and increase in costs feel free to join the debate. Please keep most of your posts on topic and please treat others with more respect than you think they deserve. Anyone who can do that is welcome to post here.

To: bentway who wrote (11009)	11/4/2009 12:27:21 PM
From: John Koligman	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

"In a move aimed directly at health insurance companies, the revised House bill would launch a federal-state crackdown on what it terms "unjustified premium increases." The companies would have to publicly disclose the justification for premium increases before they go into effect. The federal Health and Human Services department would monitor patterns of premium increases, and could bar insurers from the exchanges if the price hikes are found to be out of line. The bill would also provide $1 billion in grants to state insurance commissioners, allowing them to ramp up their own monitoring and enforcement." House Democrats clear the way for health care vote Nov 4, 10:54 AM (ET) By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats cleared the way Wednesday for a pivotal floor vote on health care overhaul as early as the weekend, after tweaking their 1,900-page bill to crack down harder on insurance companies. "Americans are ready for comprehensive health insurance reform and the House will soon act," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement that accompanied dozens of last-minute changes to the bill, released Tuesday night. Publication of the changes started a 72-hour legislative clock, meaning that a floor vote could take place as early as Saturday. But with no Republican backing for the measure, Democrats will need overwhelming support from their own. A festering intra-party disagreement over how to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion remained unresolved Wednesday morning. And in the Senate, progress on health care legislation was still on hold. The 10-year, $1.2 trillion House bill is estimated to expand coverage to about 96 percent of eligible Americans. Beginning in 2013, it would provide government subsidies to extend coverage to tens of millions who now lack it, and ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical problems. For the three years before the federal aid starts flowing, the bill would set up a temporary "high-risk pool" through which people who have been denied coverage because of poor health could obtain a government-subsidized policy. The bill would set up health insurance "exchanges" through which self-employed people and small businesses could buy coverage, either from a private insurer or a new government plan that would compete. All the plans sold through the exchange would have to follow basic consumer protection rules, making it easier to shop and compare among them. The majority of Americans covered under big employer plans would not see dramatic changes. The House bill would be paid for by boosting taxes on upper income earners and cutting Medicare payments to health insurance companies, hospitals and other medical providers. Democrats also moved Tuesday to close a biofuel tax credit loophole, raising about $23 billion to help pay for the legislation. The major last-minute changes to the House bill hardened the battle lines in the confrontation between Democrats and the health insurance industry. Insurers have sought above all to block creation of a government insurance plan, which happens to be the top legislative goal for liberals. Other changes to the bill, such as enhanced status for the government's office of minority health, were intended as sweeteners for supportive lawmakers. In a move aimed directly at health insurance companies, the revised House bill would launch a federal-state crackdown on what it terms "unjustified premium increases." The companies would have to publicly disclose the justification for premium increases before they go into effect. The federal Health and Human Services department would monitor patterns of premium increases, and could bar insurers from the exchanges if the price hikes are found to be out of line. The bill would also provide $1 billion in grants to state insurance commissioners, allowing them to ramp up their own monitoring and enforcement. Democrats also strengthened a provision that would strip the industry of its decades-old exemption from federal antitrust laws. Supporters said the tougher approach is needed to keep insurance companies from artificially boosting premiums in advance of the major reforms taking effect in 2013. While the White House cheered the momentum in the House, the Senate's top Democrat signaled Tuesday that Congress may fail to meet President Barack Obama's self-imposed year-end deadline for passing health care legislation. That would leave the fate of Obama's top domestic priority to the uncertainties of the 2010 election season. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke as Democratic officials said it could be December before Senate debate begins in earnest. The drive to pass legislation has been plagued for months by divisions within the party's rank and file. Any delay past Obama's oft-repeated year-end timetable would put the issue off until the 2010 election year and inevitably raise doubts about Democrats' ability to deliver on behalf of the Obama administration. apnews.excite.com

To: bentway who wrote (11009)	11/4/2009 12:38:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 42652

You mean he provides a service for pay or sells products to health care providers that either save them money or help them do their jobs? Sounds like a good beneficial way to make a living.

To: bentway who wrote (11009)	11/16/2009 12:58:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

In my world, people post LINKS to prove they're telling the truth when they make assertions. Links are just someone else making the assertion. If the point in question is specific data, that is reliably kept by a source everyone involved in the conversation has some trust in, than the link to the data is useful. But if the point is, "X was lying", then the link is just someone making its an argument for that assertion. Possibly useful if you really care about whether or not they where lying, and the site makes a very good argument but not inherently any better than someone making the same quality argument in an SI post. Specific facts to support the argument might be linked to, if you have trusted sources that put the data on the web, put that's basically footnoting the presentation of the case, which can be done on some other site or can be done here.