Debate: US Health Care Reform

[Netto Azure]

LOL, debates. XD

*Head-desk* The day I decided to watch Code Geass all day and forgo foruming you guys decide to throw stuff at each other?

But seriously, if you're going to be mean about it, can't you just debate without trying to insult me? You obviously aren't responsible or mature enough. >.>

While I do not support your philosophy on healthcare, I do agree and implore you apple XD that we should be civil in this thread.

I am trying to revive any political discussion in a PC thread, and scaring people does not help that particular cause. D:

While it is true that the United States lags in overall length of life compared to other first world countries, the United States has the best survival rate when it come to cancer. In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal the founder of Whole Foods, John Mackey, on how to improve the current system without increasing the national deficit.

Ok, now this is the one right way to go debate, propose a plan and we talk about the pro's and con's. Anyways while it's nice to know that fact...not all ailments are cancerous. @~@

The highlights of his proposal are:
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

I do disagree with this point as High-deductables are already causing people to have problems paying for their policies, as this means they have to carry more of the burden on paying for their healthcare while the private insurance pays less. And HSA's are good until they run out due to high cost and long term care...like cancer. @___@
What about then?

Plus it does not address our high Healthcare inflation costs.

Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

I can agree with this to be incorporated under the current bill, but I still support taxing high-end policies.

But, as David Frum says...

DAVID FRUM: Health exchange. We need to begin to sever the link between employment and insurance. It is just-- it's a holdover irrationality that you get your insurance through the place where you work, that discourages people from leaving. People who get ill, when they're at a job are then indentured because they can't-- so long as they can work at the old company, they are covered under the old plan. If they move, they can't get a new one. And there-- and that is an artifact of the tax code. And we need to correct the elements for the tax code that do that.

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

I can agree with opening up each state in the union to a national marketplace, and this is already being incorporated in the bills through the Health Insurance Exchange.

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

I disagree with this. I would rather repeal state mandates and have a Federal mandate listing minimum benefits through the Public option.

As we do have a US Democratic Congressional Majority and Administration. I will have to draw the line with compromises by having a Medicare-based Public Insurance Option and having any State in the Union keep the right to opt-out of the Federal program in order to institute their own plans.

Seems the bruhaha over this worked. :3

Pelosi: Health Care Reform Can't Pass Without Public Option​

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."
At a press conference earlier in the morning, Pelosi had been asked if including a public plan that would compete with private insurance was "essential" to health care reform.
"Can you have effective health care reform without a public option?" a reporter asked.
The goal, she responded, was affordability and accessibility. "If you have another way to do that, put it on the table. And that's where we are. Everything should be on the table," she said.
The open-ended answer led some reporters after the press conference to wonder if she was backing off her statement to MSNBC Wednesday that a bill without a public option wouldn't get out of the House.
Not at all, she said. Asked by HuffPost if she would allow a reform package without a public option out of the House, she responded: "It's not a question of allow. It wouldn't have the votes."
The bill would lack the votes because the GOP generally opposes Democratic reform proposals, and the 77 member Congressional Progressive Caucus -- rarely heard from on the Hill -- has been particularly vocal in its commitment to oppose any reform that doesn't include a public option. The public plan's popularity extends beyond progressives and is broadly popular with the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and even two-fifths of Blue Dogs, the conservative Democratic coalition.
Pelosi, during the press conference, also rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) to create private, nonprofit, regional health care cooperatives instead of a national public option.
Pelosi wasn't having it: "Not instead of a public option, no," she said.

Nice Comparison: Healthcare around the world

United States - Private system
Private sector funded, with more than half from private sources. Private health insurance available through employer, government or private schemes.

15.3% of population (45.7 million people) do not have health insurance.
Federal government is largest healthcare insurer - involved in two main schemes, Medicaid and Medicare, each covering about 13% of population.
Medicaid - joint funded federal-state programme for certain low income and needy groups - eg children, disabled.
Medicare - for people 65 years old and above and some younger disabled people and those with permanent kidney failure undergoing dialysis or transplant.
Most doctors are in private practice and paid through combination of charges, discounted fees paid by private health plans, public programmes, and direct patient fees.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals. Hospitals are paid through a combination of charges, per admission, and capitation.
UK - Universal, tax-funded system
Public sector funded by taxation and some national insurance contributions.


About 11% have private health insurance. Private GP services very small.
Healthcare free at point of delivery but charges for prescription drugs (except in Wales), ophthalmic services and dental services unless exempt.
Exemptions include children, elderly, and unemployed. About 85% of prescriptions are exempt.
Most walk-in care provided by GP practices but also some walk-in clinics and 24-hour NHS telephone helpline. Free ambulance service and access to accident and emergency. In patient care through GP referral and follow contractual arrangements between health authorities, Primary Care Trusts and the hospital.
Hospitals are semi-autonomous self-governing public trusts.
France - Social insurance system
All legal residents covered by public health insurance funded by compulsory social health insurance contributions from employers and employees with no option to opt out.
Most people have extra private insurance to cover areas that are not eligible for reimbursement by the public health insurance system and many make out of pocket payments to see a doctor.
Patients pay doctor's bills and are reimbursed by sickness insurance funds.
Government regulates contribution rates paid to sickness funds, sets global budgets and salaries for public hospitals.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals (not-for-profit and for-profit). Doctors in public hospitals are salaried whilst those in private hospitals are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Some public hospital doctors are allowed to treat private patients in the hospital. A percentage of the private fee is payable to the hospital.
Most out-patient care is delivered by doctors, dentists and medical auxiliaries working in their own practices.
Singapore - Dual system
Dual system funded by private and public sectors. Public sector provides 80% of hospital care 20% primary care.
Financed by combination of taxes, employee medical benefits, compulsory savings in the form of Medisave, insurance and out-of-pocket payments.
Patients expected to pay part of their medical expenses and to pay more for higher level of service. Government subsidises basic healthcare.
Public sector health services cater for lower income groups who cannot afford private sector charges. In private hospitals and outpatient clinics, patients pay the amount charged by the hospitals and doctors on a fee-for-service basis.

 

[Ineffable~]

It's not my fault if you think that an attack on the system is an attack on you

You've got to be kidding me.

By defending a system that would see someone die for the sake of a dollar, you *have* taken a shot at me.

^ What you are describing is yourself.

Can you not read the title? I'll reiterate:
Debate: US Health Care Reform.
Bigger font? Centered?

Debate: US Health Care Reform.
​

And here is where you very clearly insulted me. How stupid do you think I am that I can't see you are insulting my intelligence here? Also, you insulted me by insulting America on the post I quoted on my first post here. Don't even try to deny that.

lack of education and brainwashing by the media

Last time I checked, saying an entire country has a lack of education can be considered an insult...

 

[lx_theo]

You've got to be kidding me.

^ What you are describing is yourself.

And here is where you very clearly insulted me. How stupid do you think I am that I can't see you are insulting my intelligence here? Also, you insulted me by insulting America on the post I quoted on my first post here. Don't even try to deny that.

Can you both of you two stop? Neither of you are debating to the point of maturity to the slightest. Look at Netto Azure, he's debating maturely.

You're overprotective of America and can't seem to see its flaws at all and apple.SHAMPOO exaggerates a bit.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

You've got to be kidding me.

^ What you are describing is yourself.

And here is where you very clearly insulted me. How stupid do you think I am that I can't see you are insulting my intelligence here? Also, you insulted me by insulting America on the post I quoted on my first post here. Don't even try to deny that.

Last time I checked, saying an entire country has a lack of education can be considered an insult...

Haha you posted in a thread clearly marked "Debate" and then got angry when your opinion was shot down in flames? Further to that; you actually tried ordering people NOT to tell you how wrong you are. All I did was inform you as to what a "Debate" thread title meant. If you took that as insulting; it's unfortunate. The US people *are* grossly uneducated with regards to state provided health-care. Fact. It's not an insult to say so. But you'll just take something else out of context and provide your flawed view over and over again like you seem to think it's some sort of religion. Your strawman arguments have no place here; however.

Anyway! Fact of the matter is US Healthcare Reform is happening. You're getting socialist health-care, and finally you won't have to be embarrassed when telling people about the state of your "Health Care System".

It's not time to argue; it's time to celebrate! <3

 

[Netto Azure]

Can you both of you two stop? Neither of you are debating to the point of maturity to the slightest. Look at Netto Azure, he's debating maturely.

You're overprotective of America and can't seem to see its flaws at all and apple.SHAMPOO exaggerates a bit.

I do agree with you on both of those. XD

Haha you posted in a thread clearly marked "Debate" and then got angry when your opinion was shot down in flames? Further to that; you actually tried ordering people NOT to tell you how wrong you are. All I did was inform you as to what a "Debate" thread title meant. If you took that as insulting; it's unfortunate. The US people *are* grossly uneducated with regards to state provided health-care. Fact. It's not an insult to say so. But you'll just take something else out of context and provide your flawed view over and over again like you seem to think it's some sort of religion. Your strawman arguments have no place here; however.

Anyway! Fact of the matter is US Healthcare Reform is happening. You're getting socialist health-care, and finally you won't have to be embarrassed when telling people about the state of your "Health Care System".

It's not time to argue; it's time to celebrate! <3

While I do FULLY support your view on the whole healthcare debate, (Goodness I would rather support and debate HR 676/"Medicare for all", but you take what you can as we are already in the middle of the legislative process.)

I do implore you to please tone it down a bit. We won't get anyone to debate with if they are either scared or would label this thread as controlled by a particular side. Plus the Bills in consideration in Congress IS NOT the systems that are implemented under other advanced industrialized countries. It is a compromise between those on both sides of the partisan divide. I have listed them at the first post as summaries of the bills.

 

[Anti]

Well I would be posting except people seem to enjoy giving me rep comments about how my opinions are made of fail. By the way, to whoever gave me those comments, I'd have much more respect for you if you had actually posted in this thread and let me defend myself. Hiding behind anonymous rep is incredibly cowardly. >:

Anyway, people can believe what they want abut UHC, and Europeans can continue to mock us for not having government-funded care, but it's clear that most Americans simply do not like Obama's plan. Does that mean they don't want reform? Hell no. But they do want smart reform that's cost efficient and works for everyone. I happen to believe that UHC is not the best way to do that, just as many other Americans do. And just because European countries like their system doesn't mean we have to fall in line. America is America for a reason after all...

Late reply, sorry (haven't been paying attention to this thread lol)

Anyway, your counterargument for Obama's plan is that a lot of Americans don't support it. To be honest, that is a pretty faulty argument (and I pointed this out when I responded to you last time). You can make all kinds of arguments simply because "there is a lack of support" or "there is a ton of support!" Extreme example I know, but Hitler and Mussolini had a lot of support at home and even abroad (in the early years at least, AKA before the invasion of Ethiopia, the annexation of Austria, etc.), but they were obviously bad for Europe and ultimately the world. You can't just say "well we shouldn't do this because a lot of people don't want us to." Granted, there is a big difference between health care and taking down brutal dictators, but you get what I'm saying hopefully. You can't justify a position based on popular support or a lack of it.

Similarly, the whole "just because some countries in Europe are using a very successful system doesn't mean we have to because we're different!" is a pretty bad attitude to take. Being different for the sake of being different is counterproductive. What do you think would work better than Universal Health Care? I don't see why we don't use a system that has proven its worth. I can tell you don't seem to like how Europeans think we're nuts for not adopting their system, but can you really blame them? We're still stuck with an insanely costly system that is fundamentally broken, and we're supposed to be leading the world. I just want to hear your solution.

Though I do agree about the rep thing if that makes you feel better lol

 

[Ineffable~]

Can you both of you two stop? Neither of you are debating to the point of maturity to the slightest. Look at Netto Azure, he's debating maturely.

You're overprotective of America and can't seem to see its flaws at all and apple.SHAMPOO exaggerates a bit.

If you would like to look back, Apple just picked a fight with me; it wasn't my fault.

 

[lx_theo]

If you would like to look back, Apple just picked a fight with me; it wasn't my fault.

I couldn't care less. End it. Don't have to have the last word. Realize what your debate has turned into is bickering, not debating. There's no point in figuring out who's fault it is if both of you are just as perfectly willing to keep it going. It is as simple as that.


Now on topic, I'm no expert on how all of health care systems in the world work or whats purposed, I'll admit that. But couldn't there be a basic plan, with emergency needs, vaccination, other types of things they would require for school, and other common things in a basic plan, be run by the government while health insurance companies sell add one to create much more advance packages. The government having the basic plan only could minimize costs for them while still having it, the health insurance companies would not be destroyed by the public option being the obvious choice, and health insurance prices should be much less since they're add ons, not full plans.

 

[Cherrim]

Yeah, come on guys. :( There's debating and there's arguing and I'm seeing a lot more of the latter rather than the former.

Lilbittygoat, posting in a debate thread does open your opinions to the floor to be commented on, agreed with, or disagreed with. Sawah is better at vehemently disagreeing than most but you still have to be prepared to accept that your opinion is going to be different. If you simply want to comment on the situation, while not exactly encouraged in a debate thread, it's fully possible by simply not commenting anymore. Anyway, if you continue to find posts insulting in here or something, just report and if a post is out of line, the staff will deal with it. So stop posting "she started it!"-esque posts because that has nothing to do with health care reform and is off-topic.

Sawah, be nice. :( This is something lots of people feel strongly about but remember that this is also a touchy subject. Not saying you have to stop posting altogether, but drop some of the attitude in your posts. I want there to be more debates on PC since these threads are much nicer than a lot of the crap in OC lately but we aren't going to have them if a lot of the posts are provocative and intimidating. Just take a less condescending tone and we won't have to worry about this thread derailing or needing to be closed.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

Yeah, come on guys. :( There's debating and there's arguing and I'm seeing a lot more of the latter rather than the former.

Lilbittygoat, posting in a debate thread does open your opinions to the floor to be commented on, agreed with, or disagreed with. Sawah is better at vehemently disagreeing than most but you still have to be prepared to accept that your opinion is going to be different. If you simply want to comment on the situation, while not exactly encouraged in a debate thread, it's fully possible by simply not commenting anymore. Anyway, if you continue to find posts insulting in here or something, just report and if a post is out of line, the staff will deal with it. So stop posting "she started it!"-esque posts because that has nothing to do with health care reform and is off-topic.

Sawah, be nice. :( This is something lots of people feel strongly about but remember that this is also a touchy subject. Not saying you have to stop posting altogether, but drop some of the attitude in your posts. I want there to be more debates on PC since these threads are much nicer than a lot of the crap in OC lately but we aren't going to have them if a lot of the posts are provocative and intimidating. Just take a less condescending tone and we won't have to worry about this thread derailing or needing to be closed.

Sorry Erica :( Also sorry for any condescending or rude tone that was intoned without intention.
I'll try to be more mindful~

 

[Allstories]

When it comes to most political arguments, I can usually at least empathize with the opposing views. I can understand why abortion or gay marriage might not sit well with you, and even though I may disagree with your opinion on it, I can usually at least see where you're coming from.

That said, I hold that our current health care system in the US is literally indefensible. We pay more money and get less for it than every other country in the world. Anyone in favor of denying health care to citizens in the US for any reason other than being grossly misinformed deserves to lose theirs. There is literally no one who benefits from the current system other than the insurance companies. Anyone who complains about having to pay more taxes is wrong, because not only would you pay less in taxes than you already do in insurance premiums, you're taxes fund health care for other people already.

 

[Red1530]

From what I heard from the CBO is that the proposed plans will increase costs. In its preliminary report of the Affordable Health Choices Act, it is estimated that the bill will add about one trillion dollars to the federal deficit over the next decade. Also it appears that in Canada and Europe there are attempts to introduce free market reforms to improve their systems.

 

[Netto Azure]

From what I heard from the CBO is that the proposed plans will increase costs. In its preliminary report of the Affordable Health Choices Act, it is estimated that the bill will add about one trillion dollars to the federal deficit over the next decade. Also it appears that in Canada and Europe there are attempts to introduce free market reforms to improve their systems.

Well, that Trillion Dollars is essentially the cost of compromises with the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. We're keeping Most of the private insurance industry intact, they give sacrifices through more regulation and the opening up of state monopolies. While the other side forgoes the chance of instituting single-payer by rallying behind the public option (or opening up some sort of Medicare consumer plan)

The CBO itself talked about fundamental reforms. What those "fundamental reforms" mean should be clarified by them. Is it single-payer insurance or the free-market reforms of the other side?

As for other countries systems...You can buy supplamentary insurance under them and go to a private hospital if you want. @~@

 

[Red1530]

Well, that Trillion Dollars is essentially the cost of compromises with the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. We're keeping Most of the private insurance industry intact, they give sacrifices through more regulation and the opening up of state monopolies. While the other side forgoes the chance of instituting single-payer by rallying behind the public option (or opening up some sort of Medicare consumer plan)

The CBO itself talked about fundamental reforms. What those "fundamental reforms" mean should be clarified by them. Is it single-payer insurance or the free-market reforms of the other side?

As for other countries systems...You can buy supplamentary insurance under them and go to a private hospital if you want. @~@

While it may be true that you can buy supplemental insurance it would be heavily regulated. For example in six out of ten provinces in Canada (the article is dated from 2001) if a service is covered by the Government, it can't be covered by the private sector.

Recently I heard of HR 3400, a Republican alternative to the Democratic plan. In the bill it has a smaller public option that is run by the states, funded by grants from the Federal Government, and only covers high risk persons. It also will allow insurance companies to sell across states lines with some federal regulations.

 

[Netto Azure]

US Republican Healthcare Alternative

While it may be true that you can buy supplemental insurance it would be heavily regulated. For example in six out of ten provinces in Canada (the article is dated from 2001) if a service is covered by the Government, it can't be covered by the private sector.

Yet it's the insurance that is regulated, you can still go to Private clinics if you want. =/

Recently I heard of HR 3400, a Republican alternative to the Democratic plan. In the bill it has a smaller public option that is run by the states, funded by grants from the Federal Government, and only covers high risk persons. It also will allow insurance companies to sell across states lines with some federal regulations.

Still, it does have to be funded by the govenment and is not revenue neutral.

First off LOL, I've been going to Serebii and that place is even crazier. XD

Anyways, just a heads up to people here, the US Republicans will most likely rally behind this bill introduced right before the August Recess, come September:

Empowering Patients First Act (H.R. 3400)​

Summary based off the Table of Contents:​

TITLE I--TAX INCENTIVES FOR MAINTAINING HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE​

Refundable tax credit for health insurance costs of low-income individuals.​

Advance payment of credit as premium payment for qualified health insurance.​

Election of tax credit instead of alternative government or group plan benefits.​

Deduction for qualified health insurance costs of individuals.
Limitation on abortion funding.​

Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience.​

Equal employer contribution rule to promote choice.​

Limitations on State restrictions on employer auto-enrollment.​

Credit for small employers adopting auto-enrollment and defined contribution options.​

Require employers to disclose amounts paid for employer-provided health plan coverage.​

HSA modifications and clarifications.​

TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE POOLING MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUALS​

Requiring operation of high-risk pool or other mechanism as condition for availability of tax credit.​

Federal block grants for State insurance expenditures.​

Expansion of access and choice through individual membership associations (IMAs).​

TITLE III--INTERSTATE MARKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE​

Cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage.​

TITLE IV--SAFETY NET REFORMS​

Easing administrative barriers to State cooperation with employer-sponsored insurance coverage.​

Liability protections for health center volunteer practitioners.​

Liability protections for health center practitioners providing services in emergency areas​

TITLE V--MEDICAL LIABILITY AND UNCOMPENSATED CARE REFORMS​

State grants to create administrative health care tribunals.​

Bad debt deduction for doctors to partially offset the cost of providing uncompensated care required to be provided under amendments made by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.​

TITLE VI--WELLNESS AND PREVENTION​

Providing financial incentives for treatment compliance.​

TITLE VII--TRANSPARENCY AND INSURANCE REFORM MEASURES​

Receipt and response to requests for claim information.​

TITLE VIII--QUALITY​

Prohibition on certain uses of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research; accounting for personalized medicine and differences in patient treatment response.​

Establishment of performance-based quality measures.​

TITLE IX--STATE TRANSPARENCY PLAN PORTAL​

Providing information on health coverage options and health care providers.​

TITLE X--PHYSICIAN PAYMENT REFORM​

Sustainable growth rate reform.​

TITLE XI--INCENTIVES TO REDUCE PHYSICIAN SHORTAGES​

Subtitle A--Federally Supported Student Loan Funds for Medical Students​

Federally Supported Student Loan Funds for Medical Students.​

Loan Forgiveness for Primary Care Providers​

Loan forgiveness for primary care providers.​

TITLE XII--OFFSETS​

Subtitle A--Enforcing Discretionary Spending Limits​

Subtitle B--Repeal of Unused Stimulus Funds​

Rescission and repeal in ARRA.​

Subtitle C--Savings From Health Care Efficiencies​

Medicare DSH report and payment adjustments in response to coverage expansion.​

Reduction in Medicaid DSH.​

Subtitle D--Fraud, Waste, and Abuse​

Provide adequate funding to HHS OIG and HCFAC.​

Improved enforcement of the Medicare secondary payor provisions.​

Strengthen Medicare provider enrollment standards and safeguards.​

Tracking banned providers across State lines.​

Reinstate the Medicare trigger.​

Heck I can support some of the provisions on this bill such as the one addressing Tort Reform and increasing Physician training support. XP​

 

[Netto Azure]

​

Tell it like it is. At the very least look up the bill and point out where it says euthanasia for the elderly will be carried out before accusing a Jewish Homosexual US Representative of supporting Nazi "Master Race" policies. Heck these town-hells are like Godwin's Law in real life. @~@

Well since it seems that things here have become restive, and some people have dropped off...Here's a hypothetical if the Healthcare Bills go the "Democrat's Only" route.

All 5 bills currently competing in the US Congress will be voted upon in their respective houses.

The US House of Representatives will pass a Healthcare bill that contains some version of the "Public Option" while the US Senate will pass a bill that contains the "Non-Profit Cooperatives" aka "co-op's" option. Both bills will be similar in other parts such as new insurance regulation and subsidies to buying Private Health Insurance.

Then these 2 bills will be reconciled through a joint US House-Senate conference in which the resulting bill will come to the compromise using US Olimpia Snowe's proposal of a "Trigger." The bill will include a "Co-Op" which will be immediately implemented. If it does not achieve the desired results in a certain amount of years, then the "trigger" will occur in which the Public Option will be started.

Now I'm not entirely sure as to how the US Republican alternative proposals will affect the bill. But based off current prospects this is a possibility.

 

[Netto Azure]

US President Obama to give major health speech

According to a White House report, US President Obama has called for a speech to a Joint Session of the United States Congress on Wednesday, September 9th 2009 on the topic of Healthcare. He is expected to drop the controversial "Public Option" provision. Some White House officials have told NPR that the President has given up on the possibility of a Bi-partisan bill and will go through with the Democratic Majorities in the US Congress and hopes to get the support of the Senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

US President Obama to give major health speech

Mr Obama will be "more prescriptive" in his speech, an aide said

US President Barack Obama is to give a major address on healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress on 9 September, US media have reported.


Correspondents say Mr Obama will use the speech to regain the initiative on healthcare, after a summer dominated by opponents.
Passing a healthcare reform bill is Mr Obama's top policy priority for 2009.
The House of Representatives looks set to pass a bill, but US senators have yet to agree on the details of reform.

Town hall meetings


Although Mr Obama has given a number of speeches on healthcare reform at town hall meetings throughout the US, his address to Congress will be his most high-profile intervention in the healthcare debate since he entered the White House.
Mr Obama made a strategic decision to let lawmakers take the lead on drafting a healthcare bill, and urged each house of congress to pass a bill before the beginning of August.
But negotiations in the Senate stalled, and although Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives struck a deal with moderate Democrats, paving the way for passage of a bill, neither chamber managed to come up with a bill before the beginning of the August recess.
During the recess, the airwaves were dominated by angry scenes at healthcare town hall meetings, as opponents of the bill expressed their discontent with some of the proposals for reform.
Lawmakers are set to return to work on 8 September.
Some 46 million people in America currently do not have health insurance, and rising healthcare costs are a major contributing factor to America's spiralling budget deficit.
But there is disagreement about how to go about reforming the system.
The deal the Democrats in the House of Representatives reportedly reached would mandate all Americans to take out health insurance, with subsidies for the less well-off paid for by a tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year.
The House bill would also offer Americans who do not get coverage through their employer the chance to join a publicly-run scheme.
But in the Senate negotiations have stalled, with moderate senators expressing opposition to both the tax and the public plan proposed by the House.
Both chambers need to agree on a bill before it can become law.

Tsk, even I criticize the President for not being aggressive enough on this. >.>

Another reason I support government regulation of private industry. <.<

Pfizer agrees record fraud fine​

US drugmaker Pfizer has agreed to pay $2.3bn (£1.4bn) in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.

It follows the firm being found to have illegally promoted four drugs as treatments for conditions different to those which regulators had approved.

A subsidiary of the firm pleaded guilty to misbranding drugs "with the intent to defraud or mislead".

US officials said Pfizer would have to enter a corporate integrity agreement.

It will be subject to additional public scrutiny by requiring it to make "detailed disclosures" on its website.

Pfizer's general counsel said: "We regret certain actions taken in the past, but are proud of the action we've taken to strengthen our internal controls."

Acting US attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Mike Loucks said that "the size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer's crimes".

Associate attorney-general Thomas Perelli outlines ''the largest criminal fine in history''

The company faces a criminal fine of $1.195bn and a subsidiary company of Pfizer - Pharmacia & Upjohn - will forfeit $105m.

The remaining $1bn fine was levied to resolve the allegations under the civil False Claims Act.

Four drugs

The civil settlement also relates to allegations that Pfizer paid bribes and offered lavish hospitality to healthcare providers to encourage them them to prescribe four of the company's drugs. These were Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug, Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug, Zyvox, an antibiotic and Lyrica, an epilepsy treatment.

The investigation was trigged by allegations made by six whistleblowers. They will receive $102m of the civil fines paid by Pfizer.

"Although these types of investigations are often long and complicated and require many resources to achieve positive results, the FBI will not be deterred from continuing to ensure that pharmaceutical companies conduct business in a lawful manner," said Kevin Perkins, FBI assistant director, Criminal Investigative Division.

The pharmaceutical firm said earlier this year that it would pay the fine "to put issues that diminish trust behind us".

Pfizer reported a 90% drop in profit to $268m in the fourth quarter of 2008, because of the $2.3bn legal settlement, indicating that the company was aware they would be paying this sum before the terms of the deal with the Department of Justice were announced.

​

 

[twocows]

Yeah, both my parents are dying due to problems with the current health care system. My dad received a treatment for his cancer that destroyed his heart, and my mom has MS but can't get a certain medication she needs because of some gap in health care coverage that she falls into. Thanks, US health care system. You better believe I hope this passes.

 

[Virtual Chatot]

Capitalism isn't designed for Socialist principles like this, it's economic suicide.

I'd prefer to have the Universal Health Care be run individually by the states, instead of being run by the bureaucracy found in the Federal government. Of course, the state of the National Economy right now would make any socialist principle doomed to failure. For the current situation that the United States is in right now, I'd suggest Switzerland's reforms they went through in the 90's. First, you are FORCED to buy Health Care if you pay taxes, and Health Care companies are FORCED to provide service for you regardless of any preexisting condition. People who are below the poverty line will be provided with government provided health care ( the number is actually around 15% of the population ). People get healthcare service, and the Corporations will make more money.

There's my two cents

Yeah, both my parents are dying due to problems with the current health care system. My dad received a treatment for his cancer that destroyed his heart, and my mom has MS but can't get a certain medication she needs because of some gap in health care coverage that she falls into. Thanks, US health care system. You better believe I hope this passes.

There are better ways of providing care, there's to much pork in the current proposed bill.

 

[lx_theo]

Capitalism isn't designed for Socialist principles like this, it's economic suicide.

I'd prefer to have the Universal Health Care be run individually by the states, instead of being run by the bureaucracy found in the Federal government. Of course, the state of the National Economy right now would make any socialist principle doomed to failure.

There's my two cents

From what I've seen, state governments tends to not be as smart. They are much more likely to make flaws when making it.