I decided to take today off. I’m only reading stuff that isn’t directly related to diagnostic pathology. So, I picked up the monthly newsletter from the MSMA (Missouri State Medical Association). It laid out the healthcare bill in a simplified format, and stated point by point why it doesn’t support it (in contrast to the AMA). They bring up some good points. I was on the fence before regarding if I want this bill to pass, but I’ve decided I hope it doesn’t. Regulating insurance companies and requiring people to have health insurance are good things, and I think laws need to be passed to make this stuff happen. There are a bunch of problems though: (1) It does nothing for torte reform. Obama said frivolous lawsuits only account for like 1% of healthcare spending. That doesn’t take defensive medicine into account. (2) It doesn’t eliminate SGR (“sustainable growth rate,” a built in system in medicare that decreases spending by decreasing the amount physicians are reimbursed for services). (3) It creates a new bureaucracy with power to independently control medicare at a pretty extreme level. (4) According to the newsletter, the bill would “effectively ban” the development of physician owned hospitals.
Reconciliation
One of the jobs of the Senate is to keep Bad bills from getting through. Think about it. Think about all of the highly contentious, arbitrary, partisan issues we have and have had that basically split the country down the middle. And think about the other possibilities of a simple majority rule.
I’m still amazed the Democrats are using Reconciliation. It’s just so inappropriate. But this is all on top of an amazingly brazen and belligerent bill – so my surprise is simply due to my optimism.
Overall I don’t think the specific concern (“if doctors would be required to accept forced-on-us healthcare plans”) would become a huge problem. I know what this argument is getting at though. Medicare doesn’t pay doctors as much as private insurance. If their was a government option, it would pay as much as medicare. Cuts in medicare spending are a constant threat to control costs. “Cuts in medicare spending” translates exactly to paying physicians less for specific services. I’d be a lot more concerned if the government option was still part of the bill.
We witnessed a fairly unique political exchange in the experience of this summit. Has no one anything to say about it?
Here’s the Wikipedia article on Reconciliation: Wikipedia Reconciliation Act
Basically the original intent was to pass unsavory changes to keep a reasonable budget. But since it passed in 1974, the two parties have taken turns in the majority and each time raised the precedent for abuse of Reconciliation.
Can you believe these guys ramping up to use Reconciliation to pass the Senate bill? Oh my… You know – when Brown ganked Massachusetts, the evil partisan strategic side of me was like – Oh sweet destiny. Let them come. Oh – let them come. Draw them into the teeth of our forces. Harden their hearts and confuse their minds. Oh – let them use Reconciliation. Oh sweet arrogance – let them use Reconciliation.
Scott Brown elected Massachusetts State Senator
Do you think a woman who had posed nude could ever achieve national political office?
Disaster in Haiti
F-me 72 minutes long.
I appreciate efforts to make positive comments. But holy horses ass don’t you hate being treated like you’re a stupid jerk who has no idea what’s happened in the past year?
Copyright © 2010 The Noisy Dove. Design Support by 
Raging Kitty Design.
