Looking for Supporters of the House Democrats’ Health Care Plan? Hold the Mayo

Quick better ram it through before people get a chance to object to it. It doesn’t do what it was intended to do and will make care worse for all Americans, sounds like another famous piece of legislation that had to be rammed through the Congress in a hurry. If Obama’s polls are dropping before this debacle would be passed, I would hate to see them after.

The ire of the morally diminutive one and his rabid cohort of craven marionettes is rising daily; major eruptions are likely in the ensuing days.
Journalists may want to carry spittle-blockers to protect themselves from the effluent emitted during the upcoming live verbal responses. These will assuredly begin to show up shortly — very shortly.
Is the air temperature in D.C. also noticeably rising?

The AMA and other national leaders like Cleveland Clinic disagree. Surely Mayo Clinic can serve patients better than by throwing out red herrings.
The issues of Medicare reimbursement and evidence based quality health care have already been included in HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bills. Either Mayo has failed to read them or they’re hopeful that the American public hasn’t.

Obamacrat for Palin:
It is very clear that you are not ‘affiliated’ to anybody – from your choice for ’12.
A president who is not small or petty – Palin?
Great choice!

Mayo does support the bill – as usual Jake Tapper is in bed with his conservative sources. Mayo wants the original proposal of only evidence based procedures being paid – which was watered down at the request of the GOP and those conservative Democrats who are are the call of their contributors over the needs of the US population. So we have demonstration projects and evidence boards that can not set payment rates or procedures. Still a lot better than we have now. But Tapper pushes this kind of reporting as ABC joins the kill it directly or weaken it so we can we are justified in killing it GOP crowd. When will Tapper do a column on how ridiculous it is that we get a shorter life span and poorer medical outcomes than other western nations after spending 50% per person more than they do – making it necessary for us to INCREASE our spending just to get to even in lifespan and outcomes?

How about letting us know who the anonymous “janej” is, author of the Mayo blog post you’re touting. Also, please share your thoughts on why we should consider this an official statement from the Mayo Clinic, and not just “janej’s” personal opinion.

Those of you who tout the endorsement of Obamacare by the AMA should be aware that the only reason they agreed to support the plan contingent on the removal of the 21% cut in pay doctore would have gotten from medicare. How does the cost curve bend down when payments to docs increase? Commonsense tells you that if you add several million people to a public health plan, most of them poor, and without the means to take good care of themselves, costs will go up unless you cut payments to doctors. This will increase the number of doctors who refuse to see patients insured by the government thus resulting in long wait times to see a doctor. Doesn’t sound like a winner to me.

papau,
Oh, so now its the Democrats that might actually be listening to their own constituencies that are “bad”! oh woe is me, just tihnk Dems who are not willing to be Lemmings following Obama off a cliff!
By the way, any lck out there understand the details of HOW costs are going to be controlled by that bloated bill ?

“Those of you who tout the endorsement of Obamacare by the AMA should be aware that the only reason they agreed to support the plan contingent on the removal of the 21% cut in pay doctore would have gotten from medicare”
Which seems to be what the Mayo clinic is arguing for as well.

Yes: the WarBabys and Baby Boomers — the “nineties” generations (he meant the Sixties) against which He expressed so much animosity when He was in the primaries against Clinton and Edwards.

“Those of you who tout the endorsement of Obamacare by the AMA should be aware that the only reason they agreed to support the plan contingent on the removal of the 21% cut in pay doctore would have gotten from medicare”
=================================
Which seems to be what the Mayo clinic is arguing for as well.
=================================
Actually, there is a disconnect: Orszag and The Dems are now claiming that spending for the favored legislation will be “cost neutral” contrary to what the CBO reported last week. How? In part by inclusion of 21% physician pay-cut for services rendered on behalf of Medicare patients.
Can’t have it both ways…

I don’t understand the problem. Democrats control both houses of congress. They can pass any bill they want. Why are republicans being blamed for what democrats are failing to do?

Ooo! “Obama DEMANDS Congress move quickly on health care reform”
LA Times:
“President Obama, calling the need for healthcare reform “urgent” and “indisputable,” said today that it is not his own political fortune that is at stake, but rather the health of the nation’s economy.
“The need for reform is urgent, and it is indisputable,” the president said … ”
–> But it’s not “indisputable” that breaking up the deck chairs on Titanic, the better to seat the insurance corporations comfortably in the splintered remains and call it a picnic, constitutes “reform” — in fact, Democrats AND Republicans in Congress, the governors’ association, the and a zillion people demanding Single Payer — DO dispute O’Blabla.
And how dare He demand Congress act precipitately, heedless of His cooked books, when He’s declined to produce the Budget Review on time?
Everybody knows this is nowhere.

Papau asked, “When will Tapper do a column on how ridiculous it is that we get a shorter life span and poorer medical outcomes than other western nations after spending 50% per person more than they do – making it necessary for us to INCREASE our spending just to get to even in lifespan and outcomes?” I imagine he does not write that column because the “facts” you cites are simply not true. It would be meaningless to write a piece about how “ridiculous” a set of circumstances is, when that set of circumstances is contrary to fact.
Let’s start with life expectancy. If you are going to get American life expectancy higher than other countries’ levels, you are going to have to make major changes in american life UNRELATED TO HEALTH CARE. That is, our life expectancy is lower because of the much higher rate of early death from accidents (most particularly motor vehicle accidents) and from violence (you know, getting shot and such). Neither of these will be changed by providing single-payer government health care, or even by subsidizing universal health insurance.
Most blatant example: Young American males (ages 15 to 24) die from homicide at a rate of 22 per 100,000 population, according to a 1990 study. The rate of death from homicide for 15 to 24 year old males in other developed countries was less than 5 per 100,000. For example, in canada the rate was less than 4 per and in Japan is was less than 1 per 100,000.
In addition, life expectancy AT BIRTH in the US skews lower because, as we discussed in another thread, in the US we attempt to save the lives of many more very low birth-weight premature babies who would not be counted as ever having lived in other countries. That is, if a child is born at 30 weeks and weighs 2 pounds, in most countries, that child will not be able to be saved and will be listed as stillborn or miscarriage, so it will not be figured into life expectancy statistics. In the US, where we have excellent neonatal facilities in many places, attempts to save the child will be undertaken and the baby may or may not live. If the baby dies within a matter of hours, it still counts as a live birth and brings down our “at birth life expectancy” rates. Low birthweight babies (less than 5.5 lbs) account for 8% of live births in the US, with 3% weighing less than 3.3 lbs. If a child in the US reaches it’s first birthday alive, its life expectancy shoots way up in comparison with other countries.
poorer medical outcomes? By what measure, papau? Americans have the highest survivability rate in the world for all types of cancer (5 year survivability), for example.

That is, if a child is born at 30 weeks and weighs 2 pounds, in most countries, that child will not be able to be saved and will be listed as stillborn or miscarriage, so it will not be figured into life expectancy statistics. In the US, where we have excellent neonatal facilities in many places, attempts to save the child will be undertaken and the baby may or may not live. If the baby dies within a matter of hours, it still counts as a live birth and brings down our “at birth life expectancy” rates.”
Do you have ANY source to back up the right wing contention that other countries designate births differently than we do.

Everything the president says about the proposed healthcare legislation is rank falsehood, and as the polls demonstrate, more and more people are coming to realize this every day.
He knows very well that the architect of the “public option” expressly stated that in a short time it would drive out private health insurance, and yet he insists that “if you like your current plan you can keep it.” In fact you can’t if it’s provided by your employer and your employer decides to dump you into the public plan. And if you want to go to a new private plan, you can only go to a plan that offers the coverage dictated by the government.
The president knows all of this, but he hopes that not many people will realize it until after the legislation is passed.
He says that health care reform is essential to economic recovery. He knows that to be false even as he says it.
Thirty percent of American voters now strongly approve of his performance. Thirty-seven percent strongly disapprove. His approval has fallen, and his disapproval risen, faster than in any president’s first six months in the history of polling. People can no longer trust him.

“Thirty percent of American voters now strongly approve of his performance. Thirty-seven percent strongly disapprove. His approval has fallen, and his disapproval risen, faster than in any president’s first six months in the history of polling.”
yes according to FoxNews fav pollster Rasmussen who oversamples Republicans and has been in business a grand total of 10 years.
His disapproval numbers for Obama are 10 pts higher than any other polling outfit.
Just like his Bush approval numbers were 10 pts higher than any other polling org.

I really wish presidential popularity polls would just go away.
How popular a president is has nothing to do with how sound his ideas are.

“LOL,,, so you do not like his methods because they dont support your views.”
Pointing out that Rasmussen over weights Republicans has has widely divergent polling than every other polling organization must be difficult for FoxNews viewers who rely on Rasmussen to tell them their racist and homophobic views are still popular.
“Ryan, is their even ONE poll out there that is showing his approval going up”
As a trend? No.
Over the last month, he’s shown a deline from low 60′s to high 50′s.
Still not too shabby.

Rasmussen’s polls are exclusively of likely voters, and he has proven to be the best in the country at identifying likely voters. Such poll are to be contrasted sharply with polls of “adults” or “registered voters.”
Immediately after the inauguration, Rasmussen found 44% strongly approved of Obama, and a mere 18% stronly disapproved. The turnaround has been staggering, and is a result of his lying about the stimulus, cap-and-trade and health care.
All literate persons, even the most avid Obama supporters, see what is happening, and they are dismayed.

“Just like Bush.”
The numbers are similar with maybe a very slight edge to Obama at this point.
Not that comparisons are much good as predictors.
For instance Reagan’s approval went up after the assassination attempt but later fell during the recession of 82.
Bush’s approval rating was soon to be affected by 9/11.
Assuming no earth shattering events, Obama’s approval will be likely tied to how the economy does.

“Rasmussen’s polls are exclusively of likely voters, and he has proven to be the best in the country at identifying likely voters. ”
How is he the best in the country at identifying likely voters?

Forty-four percent approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the health care issue. Fifty percent disapprove. (USA Today/Gallup)

“Then what’s your point?
Posted by: Pollmole | Jul 20, 2009 6:11:23 PM”
Well one point there was that while comparisons are fun to pass time, they are not of much use to predict future job approval.
IOW, if Obama shares trends with other Presidents it does not predict he will follow that same path.
For instance, comparing Obama and Reagan is not of much use since the assasination attempt skews the numbers.
Same with Bush who went up with 9/11 and down with Katrina.
Which is why I said, barring any huge news events, Obama’s approval rating is likely to be tied to the economy as it usually is with Presidents.

guys, we gotta start facing it. he is not lieing. he DOESN”T KNOW that he is not telling the truth. he doesnt know the facts. he can’t grasp it. i mean really, you’d have to be sociopathic to stand there saying “we’re cutting the definict” and then do stimlus and omnibus. and then say it again, afterwards. he actually believes the new healthcare WON’T kill competiton and raise costs. we gotta face it: this guy could be dumber than bush. actually stupider than bush. or a sociopath. one or the other. its getting too weird around that guy. its just totally freaky. the nonsensical stuff that comes out. idiot or nutcase. we’re totally screwed.

Sadly for poor Mr. Obama, the USA Today/Gallup figures were for “Americans.” Since conservatives do poorest in that group, somewhat better with registered voters, and best with likely voters, the numbers are in accord with those of Rasmussen, and tend to confirm his data.
Anyone who believes that rationing health care and increasing wait times will increase life expectancy is an utter simpleton. Those are the people that Obama is counting on fooling, but their numbers are dwindling.

You would be hard pressed too find a Republican or any other who was against some sort of health care system for low income non-insured kids, or temporarily unemployed adults who lost their jobs of no fault of their own..everyone needs a leg up sometimes as long as the government places time restrictions on paid benefits; however, to create a system in which we pay to subsidize the benefits of some who prefer to live off the dole for years is unfair to those who work hard and end up paying….

“You would be hard pressed too find a Republican or any other who was against some sort of health care system for low income non-insured kids, or temporarily unemployed adults who lost their jobs of no fault of their own..everyone needs a leg up sometimes as long as the government places time restrictions on paid benefits; however, to create a system in which we pay to subsidize the benefits of some who prefer to live off the dole for years is unfair to those who work hard and end up paying…. ”
The only problem is, you are still paying for them. All those uninsured people still go to the hospital. How do you think they subsidize the cost of treating them? Sure they have to pay out of pocket if they have a major operation, but the visit costs them a flat fee and there is no way that fee covers the true costs.
The uninsured are costing the insured already. This is exactly the same problem that exists in auto insurance. Uninsured motorist claims are at the top of the list by a large margin and everyone who has auto insurance ends up paying for those people who don’t want auto insurance or can’t afford it. Even though they don’t pay to fix the uninsured’s car, they pay to repair the damages that person caused.