Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

[no2guncntrl]

It's a right wing conspiracy to disrupt the plan. All heed, the Great Oz
will deliver us from ourselves.

[falcon_view]

This Youtube clip is only to show, who can you trust to tell the truth or facts? Same goes for all others and medias.

[otoc]

Unless the answers are in the videos... which is doubtful...

I'm seeing confirmation of the $80 billion concession and $150 million dollar of promotional support from PhRMA to Obama in those links, and one claim of "millions" from CPR, who "is emailing out “town hall alert” flyers, and schedules of town hall meetings, to its mailing list." But Conservatives for Patients Rights is not an insurance or medical provider.

Interestingly, the first link actually answers the question you posed to Scooter about the PhRMA deal you knew nothing about.

So I'm still curious about how the insurance/medical providers get involved funding fear groups. I have not seen any evidence of that happening. Who are these fear groups? Which insurance/medical providers are you talking about?

And... no hurry and best wishes for safe travel for your folks.

Like I said, my attention is somewhere else on real life, and my words quickly typed the other day may not accurately reflect what I'm thinking.

The insurance providers were noted overseeing the townhalls, the medical provider is no longer a CEO, but no ties? My opinion is there are ties. Consider his great wealth came from being a medical provider there is a defined interest there or why would he pass on misinformation? Just to make the Dems and Obama look bad? OK, tell you what, I'll give you that one. It's not about health reform, it's about getting the GOP back in.

So, to make for discussion to continue, I'll change my statement from funding to simply state the swiftboat tactics and funding (same pr firm,lol) are coming from an ex health provider ceo whose policies made for a billion dollar fine for defrauding the government system. Wow, I'd be a bit put off representing his views on a picket line unless they supplied a little KY with the sign post.

I was aware of a deal struck with pharmaceutical companies, my question for a link to scoot's claim of billions of payola was to read what he was talking about. I've learned to first nail down the exact nature of his words before moving forward. I wasn't aware of the insurance carriers getting on board, that's another sign of a president getting ducks in a row before moving forward with this initiative that the last two administrations couldn't get through.

So was the meeting secret?

A Health Care Reform Day

June 22, 2009 9:33 AM
Over the weekend, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair of the Senate Finance Committee, announced that pharmaceutical companies had agreed to a deal as part of an overall health care reform package, where the companies will provide, as Baucus put it, "affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don't cover the cost of prescriptions," as well as kicking in some money for health care reform efforts.
"The agreement reached today to lower prescription drug costs for seniors will be an important part of the legislation I expect to sign into law in December," President Obama said in paper statement released over the weekend. "This is a tangible example of the type of reform that will lower costs while assuring quality health care for every American."
The plans would cut in half the prescription drug expenses of those who fall into the Part D coverage gap, called the doughnut hole, and was heralded by the AARP.
At noon today, President Obama will appear with Barry Rand, the CEO of AARP, to formally announce the $80 billion deal.

The house or other senators might be tweaked about not being in on the meeting, but nothing in the leaked document states any concession other than the word "oppose". Considering the House and Senate will pass the bills and get involved, the Whitehouse will do what? Veto a healthcare reform package if the numbers are different? I doubt it. On the other hand, the drug companies might back off, but at the expense of lost profits from foreign drugs.

As to a promise for a multi-million dollar drop in the bucket ad budget for the drug industry that shows people the industry is in tune, I do not consider that payola. Payola is when someone personally profits. An $80 billion dollar reduction in the price of drugs is for every person on the existing government health plan (lol, funny how we already have government health and now it is all about socialization of the US) in exchange for advertising (nothing that I've seen to date) is something that could be as simple as the drug companies explaining to seniors what the new changes are once the bill is passed. That's not a bad thing.

dutch, thanks for the kind words on the personal side. I'm taking notes for a letter to Congress on the good and the bad of my experiences with Medicare and Medicaid. I just found out interstate medical transport is not a regulated industry. You can imagine how tough it is to research a company after quotes are in. The other parent made it out of ER and is now in hospital on an excellent protocol of tests to determine not only cause but prevention of the situation repeating. No issue from me on either over testing or undertesting. Each step has been explained, discussed, and evaluated.





scooter, consider this an answer to your post. I don't agree with you. More so, I see a savvy administration getting all the players on board and more in the GOP should weigh in and be part of the change instead of using the obstructionist theory of allowing nothing to be changed.

Strange Bedfellows? Industry Groups Join In Effort to Push Health Care Reform

Healthy Economy Now -- a group that includes the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, union interests, business interests and advocacy groups -- is spending millions to pressure members of Congress to get on board with health care reform.

FOXNews.comhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...h-care-reform/
Wednesday, August 12, 2009

[Dutchcedar]

Listening to Obama at his townhall meeting, he said something that struck a chord... something like, "we may have to expand medicare coverage." That's interesting. His plans call for cutting medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.

It just doesn't add up.

Or make sense.

He picked a lousy salesman.

Karl Rove comments on the deal.

[Dutchcedar]

The insurance providers were noted overseeing the townhalls, the medical provider is no longer a CEO, but no ties? My opinion is there are ties. Consider his great wealth came from being a medical provider there is a defined interest there or why would he pass on misinformation? Just to make the Dems and Obama look bad? OK, tell you what, I'll give you that one. It's not about health reform, it's about getting the GOP back in.

To be clear, your original claim was that insurance/medical providers were spending these millions, not people tied to them (which is everyone in medical care). I smell a Halliburton/Cheney debate.

To be real, you cited one reference without evidence, so we don't even know what's up here, besides the sending of e-mails to the people on their list about where and when townhalls are to be held. I'll get angry when they pay people to go, give them signs and scripts of what to say.

I understand your concern, they're against your position. You have not shown their intent is to make the Dems and Obama look bad. They may simply be opposed.

So, to make for discussion to continue, I'll change my statement from funding to simply state the swiftboat tactics and funding (same pr firm,lol) are coming from an ex health provider ceo whose policies made for a billion dollar fine for defrauding the government system. Wow, I'd be a bit put off representing his views on a picket line unless they supplied a little KY with the sign post.

Where are the Swiftboat tactics? Hey, maybe I'll send 'em a check.

I was aware of a deal struck with pharmaceutical companies, my question for a link to scoot's claim of billions of payola was to read what he was talking about. I've learned to first nail down the exact nature of his words before moving forward. I wasn't aware of the insurance carriers getting on board, that's another sign of a president getting ducks in a row before moving forward with this initiative that the last two administrations couldn't get through.

So was the meeting secret?
The house or other senators might be tweaked about not being in on the meeting, but nothing in the leaked document states any concession other than the word "oppose". Considering the House and Senate will pass the bills and get involved, the Whitehouse will do what? Veto a healthcare reform package if the numbers are different? I doubt it. On the other hand, the drug companies might back off, but at the expense of lost profits from foreign drugs.

As to a promise for a multi-million dollar drop in the bucket ad budget for the drug industry that shows people the industry is in tune, I do not consider that payola. Payola is when someone personally profits. An $80 billion dollar reduction in the price of drugs is for every person on the existing government health plan (lol, funny how we already have government health and now it is all about socialization of the US) in exchange for advertising (nothing that I've seen to date) is something that could be as simple as the drug companies explaining to seniors what the new changes are once the bill is passed. That's not a bad thing.

I think spending more in a few months that McCain spent in his entire presidential campaign is a lot more than a drop in the bucket. Its a $150,000,000.00. That's a lot of cash.

Especially when compared with "millions" (probably 2) from Conservatives for Patients Rights.

I would love to see this debate unfunded by both sides. Since every action has a reaction though, we can't expect PhRMA's donation, payola, bribe, or whatever, not to be countered. But no, everybody's in now. Here come the TV ads of bulldung.

And, while I'd agree "saving" $80 billion sounds nice, did you see the price fix on the other side? Woah.

[otoc]

To be clear, your original claim was that insurance/medical providers were spending these millions, not people tied to them (which is everyone in medical care). I smell a Halliburton/Cheney debate.

to be clear I conceded.

To be real, you cited one reference without evidence, so we don't even know what's up here, besides the sending of e-mails to the people on their list about where and when townhalls are to be held. I'll get angry when they pay people to go, give them signs and scripts of what to say.

To be real I'm not asking for or being angry. Based on multiple posts of links. There is a goal, not of adding voices to better a bill, but simply to stop obamacare.

I understand your concern, they're against your position. You have not shown their intent is to make the Dems and Obama look bad. They may simply be opposed.

I explained my concern. Misinformation on an important issue that needs change.

Where are the Swiftboat tactics? Hey, maybe I'll send 'em a check. I think spending more in a few months that McCain spent in his entire presidential campaign is a lot more than a drop in the bucket. Its a $150,000,000.00. That's a lot of cash.

Especially when compared with "millions" (probably 2) from Conservatives for Patients Rights.

McCain lost. Obama spent more. Even Microsot on one campaign about nothing...
Microsoft kicks off $300M Seinfeld ad campaign

I would love to see this debate unfunded by both sides. Since every action has a reaction though, we can't expect PhRMA's donation, payola, bribe, or whatever, not to be countered. But no, everybody's in now. Here come the TV ads of bulldung.

And, while I'd agree "saving" $80 billion sounds nice, did you see the price fix on the other side? Woah.

yes big drugs are big business. they make and spend like there's no tomorrow making that money from people who might not have a tomorrow without the drugs.

did you see the part in those links where the wh admitted congress might change thing as well as the quotes from congress? now they know where a line has been drawn for the future negotiations. bet the final will reflect more true savings.

[Dutchcedar]

Its fair to say, at this point, that the liberal leadership we're stuck with for awhile, has some listening to do...

Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

more: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ressional_plan

A fair explanation for why there is a disconnect...

THERE are more conservatives than Republicans and more Democrats than lib erals. That's one of the asymmetries between the parties that helps to explain the particular political spot we're in.

The numbers are fairly clear. In the 2008 exit poll, 34 percent of voters described themselves as conservatives and 32 percent as Republicans; 39 percent described themselves as Democrats, only 22 percent as liberals.

The result is that the two parties have offsetting political advantages. Democrats tend to win on party identification. Republicans tend to win on ideology. Democrats don't have to appeal to as many independents as Republicans do. Republicans don't have to appeal to as many moderates as Democrats do.

But the Democrats have a problem here. The party's leadership currently tilts heavily to the liberal side. Barack Obama is from the university community of Hyde Park in Chicago. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco, and important House committee chairmen are from similar "gentry urban" locales -- Henry Waxman from the West Side of Los Angeles, Charles Rangel from a district that includes not only Harlem but much of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Barney Frank from Newton, Mass., next door to Boston.

Of the 21 top leadership members and chairmen, five come from districts carried by John McCain, but the average vote in the other 16 districts was 71 percent to 27 percent for Obama.

more: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08152009..._it_184604.htm

[tucker]

AUGUST 15, 2009.

Illegal Immigration Enters the Health-Care Debate

In California, Funding Is at Stake for a Clinic That Treats Patients No Matter Their Status; An Issue 'No One Wants to Touch'

By MIRIAM JORDAN

VALLEJO, Calif. -- A health clinic in this blue-collar city north of Oakland, partly
unded by the county, is saving local hospitals thousands of dollars in emergency-room visits by treating uninsured patients who suffer only non-urgent ailments.

A watchdog group is now calling on county officials to cut funding for clinic patients who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally, a debate certain to surface in the national health-care overhaul.

With congressional proposals already stirring raw emotions, few supporters are eager to add the incendiary issue of illegal immigration. A provision in the House's health-care-overhaul bill rules out federal funding for illegal immigrants.

But in many ways, illegal immigration is at the nexus of two key health issues: the uninsured and ballooning costs.

Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.

The role illegal immigrants play in U.S. health-care costs is "one hot button that no one wants to touch," says Stephen Zuckerman, an economist at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

Sutter Solano Medical Center Chief Executive Terry Glubka wasn't looking to enter the immigration debate when she started lobbying for a clinic in 2006. She was trying to balance her hospital's budget. Between 2000 and 2006, Solano County saw a 13.1% increase in total emergency-room visits, more than twice the state average. Nearly 80% of the visits weren't urgent.

During 2006, the hospital had to write off $12 million in "charity care" -- or services provided to low-income patients who couldn't pay their bills. The charity helped create a $4 million budget shortfall that year.

"They were getting the most-expensive care for what should be treated in a primary-care facility," Ms. Glubka says.

She began shopping the idea of a clinic for low-income residents. Sutter and another nearby hospital, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, each committed $100,000 annually over three years. Solano County's board of supervisors voted 5-0 in 2008 to contribute $250,000.

Ms. Glubka enlisted the help of La Clínica de La Raza Inc., a network of 27 nonprofit community clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area. The clinic opened last November, down the street from Sutter hospital.

Sutter hospital's emergency-room staff now refer about 60 patients a month to La Clínica. With a basic examination at Sutter hospital costing about $500 -- and often going unpaid by poor patients -- that is the equivalent of $30,000 in routine emergency-visit charges that would otherwise be written off as charity.

La Clínica charges $85.50 per consultation; low-income patients are charged less.

"If we didn't have La Clínica, we'd be in much worse shape," says Angie Hammons, Sutter's emergency-room manager.

One of the clinic's new patients is Evelia Lopez, 51, who had been visiting the emergency room to treat chronic back pain after a slip at work. About two-fifths of the clinic's patients are Hispanic, while about a quarter of the patients are African-American; one-fifth are white.

Along with their medical history, new patients are asked their income to determine what pay on a sliding fee scale.

As in emergency rooms, patients aren't asked about their immigration status.

Costs at such primary-care centers are probably 10% to 15% the cost of treatment in a hospital emergency room, says Paul Mango, head of the health-care practice at McKinsey & Co.

Residents have since complained to a 19-member county-appointed watchdog group about taxpayer money La Clínica going to health care for people living in the U.S. illegally. Neither the clinic nor the Sutter emergency room ask people their immigration status.

"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department."

Mike Reagan, a Solano County supervisor who originally voted for the clinic's funding, now says the facility should erect a "firewall" to prevent taxpayer money from going to illegal immigrants. "I'm not in favor of rewarding illegal behavior in any form," he says.

The report from the watchdog, released three weeks ago, recommends that Solano County require that public contributions to the clinic "be limited to serving only Solano County residents who have proof of citizenship or legal residency."

The county's board of supervisors and health director have 90 days to respond. County health director Patrick Duterte says he is bent on keeping the clinic open.

"My position is that to have a healthy community we can't have a subset of people who don't have access to health care," says Mr. Duterte. "It's bad public-health policy." Health experts say that giving undocumented immigrants medical care can prevent the spread of illnesses.

Meantime, the clinic has extended its hours to keep pace with swelling demand. "We're swamped," says Monique Sims, the clinic's manager.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1250...html#printMode

Here’s novel idea how about securing the borders.

[tucker]

White House Reviews Names of Recipients of Unsolicited E-Mail on Health Care

After a testy exchange between FOX News and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs over an e-mail list, the White House says it will review names of recipients who received unsolicited information to determine how they ended up on a distribution list sent out by the East Wing.

The White House on Friday was looking over a list of names submitted by FOX News of people who say they received unsolicited e-mails on health care from the White House, Barack Obama's presidential campaign or his political organization, Organizing for America.

After a testy exchange Thursday between FOX News' Major Garrett and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs over the e-mail list, the White House said it would review some of the names of recipients to determine how they ended up on the distribution list.

FOX News obtained permission from some of the e-mailers who sent their concerns to FOX News and forwarded them to the White House. No explanation has yet been received.

The White House maintains a massive e-mail list as part of its effort to promote its position on pressing issues. On Thursday, senior adviser David Axelrod used the list to send out a "chain" e-mail asking supporters of health care reforms backed by the administration to forward his rebuttal to criticism circulating on the Internet.

The mail offered reasons to support Obama's agenda and tried to debunk what the White House decries as myths in the health care debate.

Axelrod wrote that opponents are relying on tactics including "viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies."

"So let's start a chain of e-mail of our own," he said, inviting supporters to forward a message countering claims that Obama's plans would lead to rationing, encourage euthanasia or deplete veterans' health care.

But some people who received the e-mails directly from the White House forwarded them to FOX News and asked how they ended up on the list when they've never been in communication with the Obama administration. Some wondered if visiting the White House Web site automatically places them on an e-mail distribution list.

Gibbs told Garrett on Thursday that he couldn't respond until he saw who received the e-mail because he doesn't have "omnipotent clarity."

Asked whether the White House seeks other pieces of information to identify those who might be curious about health care even though they have never signed up for e-mails or visited the Web site, Gibbs said he would have to see the e-mails to know.

Pressed to explain why he couldn't answer, Gibbs said "Well, I hesitate to give you an answer because you might impugn the motives of the answer."

"Why would you say that?" Garrett asked incredulously.

"Because of the way you phrased your follow up. I'd have to look at what you got, Major. I appreciate the fact that I have omnipotent clarity as to what you've received in your e-mail box today," Gibbs said.

"You don't have to have omnipotent clarity. You don't have to impugn anything," Garrett fired back. "I'm telling you what I got: e-mails from people who said I never asked anything from the White House."

Ending the exchange, Gibbs said, "Let me go someplace else that might be constructive."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...e-e-mail-list/

How about answering the question Gibbs.

[Dutchcedar]

^^^

"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department."

That's easier than to get into some Democrats' townhall meetings, where you have to show a driver's license and cheaper than some others where you have to pay twenty-five bucks (but get breakfast).

What a country.

[Dutchcedar]

Weasel alert!!!

BLITZER: Did the White House make a secret deal with PhRMA, the pharmaceutical lobby here in Washington, that would limit how much cost reductions they would have going forward over the next 10 years?

DOUGLASS: Here is what -- what happened. The White House, the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed that the pharmaceutical industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years -- a very, very substantial sum of money that would lower the high cost of prescription drugs for seniors, who are paying exorbitant costs for prescription drugs. That was a crucial piece of this deal, as well as other steps that they would take to lower costs.

It's an $80 billion agreement. That's what the White House, the Senate Finance Committee and PhRMA have agreed to. And the final details are being worked out with the -- with the Senate Finance Committee.

BLITZER: Did PhRMA, in exchange, make a promise of $150 million to pay for advertising to help the president's plan go forward?

DOUGLASS: What -- what you have, Wolf, is this deal that is $80 billion. And we are very pleased, obviously, that -- that the pharmaceutical industry agrees with us, that there's an urgent need for comprehensive health insurance reform that's going to protect Americans from unfair rules, from rising costs. They agree with that. They've agreed with it from the beginning. That's why they came to us and we worked out this agreement with the pharmaceutical industry. And they're supporting health reform legislation. And that is good for the country.

BLITZER: So is part of the deal that they would support this legislation, go forward with $150 million in advertising?

DOUGLASS: You know, Wolf, part of the agreement here is that we're all going to work together to bring comprehensive health reform. I mean, clearly, the pharmaceutical industry said we are going to support comprehensive health reform. And that's what they're doing.

Obama has no plan in place, but has backroom deals in place. And a spokesperson who doesn't know how to pronounce the word "yes" unless its followed by "we can".

Transparency was promised.

Payola was given instead.

[tucker]

Weasel alert!!!Obama has no plan in place, but has backroom deals in place. And a spokesperson who doesn't know how to pronounce the word "yes" unless its followed by "we can".

Transparency was promised.

Payola was given instead.

You just don’t understand Chicago politics yet.

Payola is an acceptable part of the process in Chicago.

[falcon_view]

You just don’t understand Chicago politics yet.

Payola is an acceptable part of the process in Chicago.

Need to rephrase

Payola is an acceptable part of the process in United States and most if not all of the world.

[SteveW]

^^^That's easier than to get into some Democrats' townhall meetings, where you have to show a driver's license and cheaper than some others where you have to pay twenty-five bucks (but get breakfast).

What a country.

It's all part of the new Transparancy plan. Sits smack dab in the middle of Hope and Change. Can you see it now?

[Dutchcedar]

Need to rephrase

Payola is an acceptable part of the process in United States and most if not all of the world.

I don't remember it done for a US President quite so brazenly and certainly not on such a scale.