Some nuggets in Pres. Obama's healthcare bill

[Jonathan]

[Gary]

Went looking for the originals of those nuggets listed above. Pretty much everything referenced back to Michelle Malkin's blog. None, include Malkin, had a reference to the original document.

The MSM all were talking about how the President's plan was about 50 pages.

Someone, or ones, are incorrect.

To date, I have seen no reference to the President's document online anywhere. Lots of summaries, etc., but no document.

Gary

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

Congressmen are elected to represent their districts, not a "federal voting pool". I fail to see what there is in representing the interests of one's district, one's constituency, that necessarily impugns one's integrity.

[KeithE]

[Cathy]

While I am not sure that all of the provisions that Jonathan lists are necessarily inappropriate I agree that linking these provisions to a single senators vote appears to be an inappropriate payoff.

Maybe if McCain would vote for the healthcare bill then they could drop the Florida provision (since he spoke of this in the summit) and toss out the vote of the Florida senator.

Maybe if Olympia Snow voted for the bill they could drop the Nebraska provisions and lose the Nebraska senators vote...etc

The lack of willingness to engage in the development of a healthcare bill put such a premium on votes that a lot of special deals were cut.

Now as to the Montana provision. Surely Baucus could not vote against the bill.

While I appreciate the fact that these provisions can appear like a lot of pork I doubt that it really bears much of the blame for the Republican lack of participation in the legislative process. That blame should be laid to a strictly political calculation that the Republicans feel they benefit if Obama fails.

Isn't the reconciliation process itself more amenable to eliminating specific provisions (particularly when cost is an issue).

In the case of some of the state specific provisions I believe they were added to overcome some of the additional costs some states would incur because they would not be supported if they already had some provisions working there. So these were corrective actions that would make each state more equal in their federal contributions.

[KeithE]

[Cathy]

I'd love to see fewer administrators

Tort reform hasn't seen the reduction in malpractice rates expected in this state. I assume it will come down over time. There has been a big drop in the number of cases. I understand the lawyers are hoping for a reversal.

Hospitals like to add services that are the most profitable. If you see all the hospitals adding the same new services you might question whether the reimbursement for some of those services are too high. Transplants, Sleep centers...Not to say that they aren't needed but one might question the motivation, needed service vs profits. I can point to a hospital that dropped a clinic for after hospital f/u of patients on medicare and medicaid while opening a sleep center and infusion center.

RVUs have to reflect need no matter what third party payor is used. What will be done to reduce the decline in primary care?

It will be a hard industry to reign in.

[William Thornton]

Citizens in a few states receive exemptions or additional benefits at the expense of citizens of the remainder and the reason for this is not that certain senators who are witholding critical votes are holding out demanding payment for their vote but that Republicans are witholding their votes which, if given to the Democrats, would make all this vote buying uncessary? I don't even think I've heard the most rabid Democrat politico spin it like that.

[Cathy]

My immunizations might not be up to date.

[Dave Roberts]

When I look at the local hospital, I see what Cathy said. First, they closed the OB section because most of the patients were Medicaid recipients, so the hospital lost money on every delivery. In its place, there is a behavioral health unit. Second, they expanded the same-day surgery unit to accomodate more colonoscopies and more cataract surgeries. Third, there is a weekly meeting of department heads in which each must show how they made a profit or explain to the others why his or her department did not make money that week. That almost seems the worst of all possible ways to care for people. What happened to the model of not-for-profit medical care?

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Cathy]

[Cathy]

[Stephen Fox]

Dem Wasserman of the US House from Florida defeats Eric Cantor on all the substantive and prudent points; easily has the realpolitik virtuo us high ground over Cantor and CAthy and I know it and Jonathan remains stubborn

[William Thornton]

I may need a grammar and syntax pill. Sorry. Let me try again without the rabid, a word that I should probably not use except in the context of rabid calvinists.

The idea that the dems sordid vote buying is excusable because of the lack of GOP support is not a very good argument, seems to me. Even Obama agreed that it is bad.

[KeithE]

[Cathy]

[Dave Roberts]

[Cathy]

[Cathy]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Cathy, I don't know what the byzantine reconciliation process would allow or disallow. The dems may have to deal with more desertions from the house. I haven't heard Reid say that they plan to remove any of the nuggets Jonathan listed above.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/ ... re-the-gop