Blue Dog: Climate Change Vote Damaged Health Care Cause
This is an interesting argument, coming from Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), health care reform skeptic, and the Blue Dogs' point man on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"I don't know whose decision it was to put cap-and-trade first, but it was a huge mistake," Ross said. "It's a divisive issue. I felt like we had the opportunity to do one thing before the August recess . . . and everybody agrees we need to reform health care."
But Ross voted no on the Waxman-Markey bill, and his arguments about health care reform have not, until now, been chiefly about the number of risky votes he and other conservative Democrats have been asked to take. This argument would make more sense coming from a vulnerable freshman or sophomore who voted for cap-and-trade legislation than from a Blue Dog leader.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Like Paul Krugman said the Blue Dogs are getting more and more incoherent.
July 27, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike Ross is one of the Blue Dogs who are obstructing healthcare reform, and probably has another motive besides greed. He is a hardcore Clintonite who represents Clinton country. One of his constituents had to say this:
July 27, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we got our feelings hurt on cap-and-trade and we're not going to do what's right for the country and its citizens because we're miffed.
Ooohhh, good argument.
July 27, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell do you think you're doing? You're trying to force me to have a back bone? You can't do that!!
July 27, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like BS to me.
July 27, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
-Democrats pushing for health care reform got serious jolts last week from critics who warned that their proposed legislation would 'do little to slow spiraling health care costs'. A group of conservative Democrats vowed that they would join Republicans-
Blue Dogs Rake in the Dollars from the Health Care Industry ... The 20 Blue Dogs have taken a combined $6,849,273 from various segments of the health care industry, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics
Thank You !
July 27, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put aside some distractions caused by the health industry-sponsored Democrats, and the controversial analysis of CBO on the economic effect of the proposed independent advisory council and how to empower it substantively, get back to focus on how to meet the goal of deficit-neutral.
The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A "Pay for Value" reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.
The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos)
The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."
THANK YOU !
July 27, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck deficit-neutral. Did these same Blue Dog assholes worry for one second about Bush's tax cuts and wars blowing the roof off the deficit? No, they did not. Hypocrites.
July 27, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A pay for outcome / value payment system, key to the deficit-neutral, might be capable of bringing all groups together.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve' care, that means more than $1trillian over a decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the wealthiest. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos).
As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."
1. There is no need for infighting and class conflict.
2. It can satisfy revenue-neutral raised by the Republicans.
3. It is able to resolve the regional disparity.
4. It may bring the private insurers to competition, innovation.
5. The focus on 'outcome' over volume can make the practitioners more accurate and creative based on IT SYSTEM and evidence, while eliminating the additional, unnecessary care that is increasing patients' pains, frustrations, and possible side-effects.
6. The desperate people will get back American dream.
THANK YOU !
July 28, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink