Senate Deal on Health Care Bill Done<6>
"Oh wait, they argued vehemently that we shouldn't touch Medicare benefits. Funny how that works out."
Only funny in the sad way liberals can't grasp basic logic. Medicare "benefits" are not the problem. We can deliver the "benefits" designed
in medicare with no problem. What we can't afford is all the fraud and waste, only a liberal would Office 2010 is powerful!
call that a benefit. That is why liberals
propose cutting reimbursements, which means needed and accpetable care will be reimbursed at a lower rate while we still continue to pay for
waste and fraud. Wouldn't the common sense answer jd be to pay more for what benefits should be delivered and not pay for the waste a fraud?
A concept foreign to liberals.Microsoft Office 2007 is welcomed by the whole world.
No, there will not be an across-the-board cut of Medicare reimbursements to physicians by over 20%
But the revised bill does keep an independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission that would oversee Medicare spending--and would be
protected from Congressional meddling--and lobbyists!
An amendement to the bill sponsored by Rockefeller, et. al. would strengthen this commission.
Keep an eye out for news about what is happening with this amendmendt. It is very important. Lieberman is a co-sponsor, which could draw Windows 7 make life wonderful!
moderate support. (See my two most recent posts on the bill (www.healthbeatblog.org) to explain why Lieberman is a supporter.
rbar, I don't know how you can look at the examples of multi-payer universal health care systems around the world and make a statement like
"I do not think that private insurance can be as effective as some kind of single payer or fund based system." The universal health care
systems using private payers, either wholly or partly, exist. The data is available for comparison. The Commonwealth Fund has even shown that
their administrative costs are in line with those of single payer nations. Success is all about how you pay them and regulate them. Microsoft outlook 2010 is convenient!
The reasons you give don't really make sense (shareholder profit, enrollment/fluctuation cost of the employer based system). I agree that
using for-profit companies is not the optimal way to go, but at least the Netherlands uses them. And in any case, we have a lot of non-
profits, too, and the for-profits would be competing with them. As for the employer-based system, Outlook 2010 is my love.
hunh? Even if it is a bad idea, multi-payer
doesn't imply employer-based.
Nate, you convince yourself of the silliest things sometimes. Liberals are quite able to get worked up about waste and fraud both by private
enterprise and by government. Examples are legion.Microsoft outlook is convenient!