Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[dohdough]

Well, whether facts are the end of a debate depends on the question being debated. If it's an empirical question, then facts are the only thing that matters. If it's something related to morals, values or beliefs, then facts are only part of the question.

For example.

1. "Will Obamacare save money with the way it reforms health care?
2. "Do people have a right to health care and we should do what we can to give eveyone access.?

The first is a purely empirical question and can be answered with facts--though its really only one that can be answered after the plan is fully implemented and we have hard data to analyze.

The second is morals/beliefs issue and facts are only going to be part of what one considers in forming an opinion.

So like most things, it's not an either/or situation--it depends on the topic at hand. But even for the morals/values issues people should look at all the facts before forming their opinion rather than having opinions that run counter to the factual evidence.
Take your fancy pants book learnin and GTFO:twoguns:

[Clak]

On this episode of...Inside the Mind of a Teetotaler, I was told that government health care is a bad idea because then the gubment will force us all to go on diets.

[MSI Magus]

On this episode of...Inside the Mind of a Teetotaler, I was told that government health care is a bad idea because then the gubment will force us all to go on diets.

If the government forces us all to go on diets it means there is probably a reason. Now I am not saying I think the goverment should force people to go on diets. Just saying that it does seem to be a common fear of many people and other then how unreasonable and silly people are it also shows how far too many people are fat and unwilling to take any step to change that.

Note - Im a fat guy, im just a fat guy trying to change that. I went from 350 to 200 then meet my wife and over 7 years have went back to 300. So I am not sitting around as some skinny asshole without food issues telling others to try dieting.

[thrustbucket]

This is simply not a solution since the free market has not worked for decades and thus has proven it is the problem.


While everything else you said may have some truth to it, I take issue with this statement whenever I hear it. We haven't had a real free market system in our lifetimes - probably not even in the last century (maybe ever).

Washington and corporations have been deeply in bed together for decades. Cronyism and corporatocracy is the antithesis of a free market system, but those on the left would try to convince you that IS the free market system.

Since you like analogies-
It's like you save up and buy a race car to enter a race, only to soon realize that all the other drivers work for the people that built the racetrack and wrote the rules of the race specifically for their cars (and can change them whenever they feel like it). You lose the race. Some try to tell you it just proves that racing is inherently unfair and needs to be abolished; but really it just needs to be made fair.

[MSI Magus]

While everything else you said may have some truth to it, I take issue with this statement whenever I hear it. We haven't had a real free market system in our lifetimes - probably not even in the last century (maybe ever).

Washington and corporations have been deeply in bed together for decades. Cronyism and corporatocracy is the antithesis of a free market system, but those on the left would try to convince you that IS the free market system.

Since you like analogies-
It's like you save up and buy a race car to enter a race, only to soon realize that all the other drivers work for the people that built the racetrack and wrote the rules of the race specifically for their cars (and can change them whenever they feel like it). You lose the race. Some try to tell you it just proves that racing is inherently unfair and needs to be abolished; but really it just needs to be made fair.

No analogy needed, I could easily agree with your statement. The thing is that there never really will be a free market. Corporations and politicians will always abuse it, they have far too much power. The only way to stop this from happening is regulation, but if you regulate the market then its not truly a free market now is it?

My original point stands though. Republicans say the solution to everything from making our food healthy again to pollution to health care is a free market. But you yourself just admitted at best thats lip service. So again the point that conservatives have no solution stands.

[thrustbucket]

I admit I don't follow this subject enough to really be able to say who has offered what.

The way I see it, Republicans don't believe the health care problem is the same problem the Democrats believe it is. They can't even agree on what the problem is.

The Democrats have been far better at "framing" their version of the problem to the public, so it's been much easier to sell them a solution as well.

Republicans have mostly failed at framing the problem as they see it, so at this point any solution offered that is not some flavor of "government must run healthcare" - won't be seen as a solution.

[UncleBob]

Corporations and politicians will always abuse it, they have far too much power. The only way to stop this from happening is by giving the politicians (who I just said will always abuse it) even more power

ftfy.

[camoor]

ftfy.

Do you understand about different branches of the govt? Or did your homeschooling bump that for populism 101?

[mykevermin]

The Democrats have been far better at "framing" their version of the problem to the public

Nonsense. Seriously; when have the left ever been able to organize and frame an issue better than the right?

This is just an issue that's so fundamentally important that the right haven't been able to convince enough of the plebians to vote against their self interest for some free-market-fairy that will fix costs of care.

They tried with the "socialist" stuff, and it stuck with some people - convincing a potion of the public that a President who starts in the center of issues and negotiates to the right from there is actually a secret member of the Kremlin.

They tried by outright lying about CBO data.

They tried by lying about the quality of care.

They tried by lying about death panels.

But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

What *was* the Democrats' framing, here, anyway? "Hey, who wants to have health care?"

[UncleBob]

Do you understand about different branches of the govt? Or did your homeschooling bump that for populism 101?

I'm curious... which branch of the government isn't often found in bed with corporate interests?

[camoor]

I'm curious... which branch of the government isn't often found in bed with corporate interests?

I think the legislative branch is more corrupted by corporate interests then the executive branch, especially after the disastrous "campaign donations are free speech" ruling.

[Msut77]

What myke said. Even considering thrusts usual standards he should be ashamed.

[dmaul1114]

The problem isn't that politicians have too much power.

The problem is that they're controlled by corporate interests through campaign donations and lobbyists.

IMO corporations should not be able to make donations to politicians, only individuals should. And the individual donations should be capped at a relatively low level--no more than a couple thousand per election.

Corporations would still have sway by pressuring employees to donate to a certain candidate (or giving them money to donate etc.), running ads etc., but it would at least be better than the current system.

[UncleBob]

The problem isn't that politicians have too much power.

The problem is that they're controlled by corporate interests through campaign donations and lobbyists.

The second part of this is what makes the first part bad.

IMO corporations should not be able to make donations to politicians, only individuals should. And the individual donations should be capped at a relatively low level--no more than a couple thousand per election.

I can agree that "corporations" shouldn't be able to make donations. However, I'm not sure I can agree with a donation cap. So long as politicians are forced to disclose who the donation came from, I'd strongly prefer no caps than some kind of system where rich individuals play a shell game trying to get money to politicians, as you are proposing.

[dmaul1114]

Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Put a cap of a few thousand on donations and require them to be disclosed.

That cuts down on the amount of influence the wealthy had and prevents the shell game.

Also couple it with limits on how much of their own money candidates can spend on their campaign.

That will kill two birds with one stone. Cut down on the amount of power corporations and the rich have in politics, and cut down on the amount of money needed to campaign for federal office. Now one has to pretty much be wealthy on their own and able to raise a shit ton of donation money to campaign for federal office. With some exceptions for the house since districts are pretty smaller and easier to campaign than whole states.

[MSI Magus]

Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Put a cap of a few thousand on donations and require them to be disclosed.

That cuts down on the amount of influence the wealthy had and prevents the shell game.

Also couple it with limits on how much of their own money candidates can spend on their campaign.

That will kill two birds with one stone. Cut down on the amount of power corporations and the rich have in politics, and cut down on the amount of money needed to campaign for federal office. Now one has to pretty much be wealthy on their own and able to raise a shit ton of donation money to campaign for federal office. With some exceptions for the house since districts are pretty smaller and easier to campaign than whole states.

You forgot 2 very important parts.

1. No hidden donations. Everything should be public that way corporations and rich private citizens cant fund things in their interest in the shadows

2. Require that any ad list its primary donors or at least a website where the viewer/reader can go to see who is behind it.

These billion dollar interests wouldnt be able to do a lot of this if their donations were in the open.

[UncleBob]

Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Put a cap of a few thousand on donations and require them to be disclosed.

That cuts down on the amount of influence the wealthy had and prevents the shell game.

Corporations would still have sway by pressuring employees to donate to a certain candidate (or giving them money to donate etc.), running ads etc., but it would at least be better than the current system.

Yeah, no shell game here.

[dmaul1114]

I didn't forget number 1. That's what I meant by saying "require them to be disclosed."

Agree with number 2. Though the ads do at least say which organization sponsored it at the end, and I think that is a legal requirement. But I'd support requiring the organizations to list all their donors on their website as well.

[dmaul1114]

Well, that type of shell game is just impossible to prevent.

There's always going to be crap like that going on. All we can do is try to minimize it. So I should have said "reduces the shell game" rather than prevents it.

You're idea of not having a cap would just make it worse as the corporations could give bigger sums of moneys to their employees to place donations with. With caps in place at least each individual can only give a few grand, whether it's their own money or money given to them by a corp. to donate.

[UncleBob]

Well, that type of shell game is just impossible to prevent.

There's always going to be crap like that going on. All we can do is try to minimize it. So I should have said "reduces the shell game" rather than prevents it.

You're idea of not having a cap would just make it worse as the corporations could give bigger sums of moneys to their employees to place donations with. With caps in place at least each individual can only give a few grand, whether it's their own money or money given to them by a corp. to donate.

If there's no cap, there's no need for the shell game.

But why go with a cap of "a few grand"? Why not put a cap of, say, $20 per individual per candidate? Wouldn't that do an even better job of everything you're trying to accomplish?

[dmaul1114]

Yes, but if there's no cap then corporations still have too much influence, which is the major problem. That bothers me much more than the shell game.

And I'd be fine with a lower cap. Just threw out the cap of a few grand since that's the current individual cap.

[nasum]

if it's ridiculously low enough, more would be inspired to contribute, but there'd likely be less on the whole so you wouldn't have to hear accusations of centipedes lurking in vaginas.

[IRHari]

Any thoughts on the administration forcing insurance companies to offer birth control & preventative screenings for free, sans copays? Outrage? Where's my free boner pills?

[MSI Magus]

Any thoughts on the administration forcing insurance companies to offer birth control & preventative screenings for free, sans copays? Outrage? Where's my free boner pills?

I have seen conservatives go nuts over this because of the typical religious reasons. Funny thing is that you would think they would be for it since it will create a hell of a lot less welfare babies. It gives the poor much better access to BC which is an amazing amazing thing.

[dohdough]

I have seen conservatives go nuts over this because of the typical religious reasons. Funny thing is that you would think they would be for it since it will create a hell of a lot less welfare babies. It gives the poor much better access to BC which is an amazing amazing thing.
If I can't tap dance in a bathroom stall with a wide stance(to have sex with men) as a rich old white conservative god-fearing man(that's in the closet), then none of you whores can either!!!!8-)

[dmaul1114]

Any thoughts on the administration forcing insurance companies to offer birth control & preventative screenings for free, sans copays? Outrage? Where's my free boner pills?

As Magus said, theirs some outrage from the religious right, catholics etc. of course.

I think it's a fantastic idea. Having free birth control will cut down on unwanted pregnancies and all the problems those cause for society.

And any type of preventative screening is a good thing as a big problem with US public health is people don't do enough to prevent health problems from occurring/worsening and only go when they already have a major issue which is thus more expensive to treat.

[Clak]

If the government forces us all to go on diets it means there is probably a reason. Now I am not saying I think the goverment should force people to go on diets. Just saying that it does seem to be a common fear of many people and other then how unreasonable and silly people are it also shows how far too many people are fat and unwilling to take any step to change that.

Note - Im a fat guy, im just a fat guy trying to change that. I went from 350 to 200 then meet my wife and over 7 years have went back to 300. So I am not sitting around as some skinny asshole without food issues telling others to try dieting.
It is ridiculous. There is no reason to believe it's true other than paranoia. Of course being fat is something to be proud of in the U.S. too it seems. I haven't heard any skinny people say they were afraid of that, and I'm no stick myself, but I wouldn't be scared of the government putting me on a diet.

Honestly, I find that paranoia seems to be a common trait among tea party types. They're always terrified the government will do "insert ridiculous statement here".

[MSI Magus]

As Magus said, theirs some outrage from the religious right, catholics etc. of course.

I think it's a fantastic idea. Having free birth control will cut down on unwanted pregnancies and all the problems those cause for society.

And any type of preventative screening is a good thing as a big problem with US public health is people don't do enough to prevent health problems from occurring/worsening and only go when they already have a major issue which is thus more expensive to treat.

It also will reduce the number of STDs both through treatment and prevantion. Again something that is great for society both medically and in the cost savings sense.

[dohdough]

It also will reduce the number of STDs both through treatment and prevantion. Again something that is great for society both medically and in the cost savings sense.
As well as being profitable to Big Pharma and healthcare providers.;)

[dmaul1114]

Which is fine. I have no problems with the drug companies and health care providers making more money as a result of people taking better care of themselves.

And honestly, that's not a sure thing. If you catch cancer early, it's going to be a shorter and cheaper course of treatment than if it was caught at a more advanced stage.

So it's possible that more screenings etc. could mean less money to health care providers and drug companies in the long run for some diseases by having more people deal with them before they get very advanced and require long and costly treatments (that still often result in the person dying as it was caught too late).

[MSI Magus]

As well as being profitable to Big Pharma and healthcare providers.;)

Health care providers not as much I imagine. I pointed out to my wife that you would think they would have wanted to do this years ago since pregnancies must cost them a fortune. She said at the same time though every time someone gets pregnant all those tests they take the insurance companies make money off of as well vs just paying.

Really I guess at the end of the day all we should consider is what is best for society. We should do this first off just because its the right thing to do, but second because I guess corporations will find a way to make a buck on anything ;)

[dohdough]

To be honest, I don't have a huge problem with them making a few bucks either and this is actually a good policy. Profit will be made, but I see also see it as a way to slightly disenfranchise Big Pharma and the insurance cartel.

I was just being a little obtuse earlier. :D

[chiwii]

As Magus said, theirs some outrage from the religious right, catholics etc. of course.

I think it's a fantastic idea. Having free birth control will cut down on unwanted pregnancies and all the problems those cause for society.

And any type of preventative screening is a good thing as a big problem with US public health is people don't do enough to prevent health problems from occurring/worsening and only go when they already have a major issue which is thus more expensive to treat.

I'm certainly not a member of the religious right, but I'm not convinced that the new "no-copay on birth control" is a great idea. I don't understand why birth control must be completely free, but medicines that patients need still require a co-pay. I also don't understand why prescription birth control must be totally paid for by the insurers, but non-prescription forms of birth control have to be paid for by the consumer.

I definitely thnk that all health insurance plans need to cover prescription birth control, but I don't think it's a problem to charge a copay at the same level as other prescription drugs.

[dohdough]

I'm certainly not a member of the religious right, but I'm not convinced that the new "no-copay on birth control" is a great idea. I don't understand why birth control must be completely free, but medicines that patients need still require a co-pay. I also don't understand why prescription birth control must be totally paid for by the insurers, but non-prescription forms of birth control have to be paid for by the consumer.

I definitely thnk that all health insurance plans need to cover prescription birth control, but I don't think it's a problem to charge a copay at the same level as other prescription drugs.
This is a pretty good point. I think it has more to do with patents and qualifications to go OTC(over the counter), which a lot of companies try to fight in the US. More profit is made at the prescription level than the consumer level. Also a lot of these drugs contain strictly controlled substances that have varying levels of damaging effects.

[dmaul1114]

That is a fair point. I'm not opposed to a small co-pay on birth control with one stipulation.

There has to be a subsidy for low income women to get it for free. Unwanted pregnancies are concentrated in the lower class, and they thus need free access to birth control as many will not use it if there's a $5-10 copay every month to get it.

Personally, I support a 100% national health care system where there's no copay as everything is covered by our tax dollars. But that's a pipe dream in this country.

[chiwii]

That is a fair point. I'm not opposed to a small co-pay on birth control with one stipulation.

There has to be a subsidy for low income women to get it for free. Unwanted pregnancies are concentrated in the lower class, and they thus need free access to birth control as many will not use it if there's a $5-10 copay every month to get it.

Personally, I support a 100% national health care system where there's no copay as everything is covered by our tax dollars. But that's a pipe dream in this country.

I agree that low income women need free access to birth control. I wonder if Medicaid provides prescription birth control?

I support a national health care system, but I think that there should be a small copay for office visits, drugs, and maybe some tests. Just enough to make people realize that the care they receive isn't actually free, and they should think twice before running to the doctor for every cold or stomache.

[UncleBob]

The only problem I see with "Free Birth Control" is that we're not likely looking at condoms. Since condoms are virtually the only type of birth control that prevents STDs (including those super-nasty ones that you can't cure even if you 'catch it early'), I'd be concerned that individuals who normally rely on cheaper, easier to obtain condoms might switch to a different type of "free" birth control, ditch the condoms and then our health care system finds itself with a lot more cases of STDs.

Granted, that's a bunch of speculation...

[dmaul1114]

True, but you can usually get free condoms and the local health department branch etc. But yeah, more outlets for free condoms would be a plus irrespective of free birth control pills.

[UncleBob]

True, but you can usually get free condoms and the local health department branch etc. But yeah, more outlets for free condoms would be a plus irrespective of free birth control pills.

Also true. But the low-income folks who can't be bothered to get free hand-out condoms won't be bothered to get free hand-out birth control pills. I mean, free condoms, all you have to do is walk in and ask. Free birth control pills require you to go to a gyno and let them stick thinks up your hoo-hoo and such. Then, you have to go to a whole different place to actually get the prescription filled. And you have to wait there too.

[dmaul1114]

I'll put that on gender. Getting condoms is usually the guy's task, and I think young males are embarrassed about getting condoms in general, much less going to the health department and asking for them.

I think women, who have more to lose in an unwanted pregnancy, would be less resistant to getting on freely provided birth control pills. Especially if they can get them through their regular doctor rather than the health clinic.

Pure conjecture though. Only research after free birth control is more widely available will tell us how many take advantage of it and if it has an impact on rates of unwanted pregnancies.

[dohdough]

Women should be seeing gynos regardless of socio-economic status imo. Lady parts cancer and hpv don't really care about what race you are or how much money you have.

Your average std is still cheaper to deal with than a baby...justsayin

I also don't agree that going to the doctor for every cold or stomach ache is necessarily a bad thing and a poor argument. You can't tell if its going to be a major illness if you don't get it checked out.

[Allnatural]

I'll put that on gender. Getting condoms is usually the guy's task, and I think young males are embarrassed about getting condoms in general, much less going to the health department and asking for them.
Probably true, but I never quite understood why. As a teen, I had no problem going into any drug store and buying them, and in my twenties and beyond, I'd buy them at the grocery store (bread, milk...condoms).

As a comedian (don't recall his name) once said, "what better way to show the world you're gettin' some." :)

[camoor]

I'm certainly not a member of the religious right, but I'm not convinced that the new "no-copay on birth control" is a great idea. I don't understand why birth control must be completely free, but medicines that patients need still require a co-pay. I also don't understand why prescription birth control must be totally paid for by the insurers, but non-prescription forms of birth control have to be paid for by the consumer.

I definitely thnk that all health insurance plans need to cover prescription birth control, but I don't think it's a problem to charge a copay at the same level as other prescription drugs.

I think we need to get free birthcontrol out to poor women whether it be through insurance companies or the state.

Birth control is a drop-in-the-bucket compared to the staggering costs of an unwanted baby born into poverty.

Free birthcontrol to those who can't afford it is simply common sense.

[dmaul1114]

I also don't agree that going to the doctor for every cold or stomach ache is necessarily a bad thing and a poor argument. You can't tell if its going to be a major illness if you don't get it checked out.

Agreed. The only problem here is the absurd amount doctors bill insurance companies for simple sick visit. The doctor spends maybe 5 minutes with you, and the nurse less than that before hand taking your weight and temp etc., and they bill like $250.

The problem isn't people getting checked out for colds--that's a good thing as it's hard to tell a cold from the flu or a sinus infection or strep throat or anything else that needs meds on your own. The problem is health care costs have gotten out of hand and doctors over charge for everything and that runs of health insurance costs for everyone.

That's what needs to be dealt with. Not people going to the doctor too much. Again, people let a "cold" go and end up with pneumonia and a hospital stay etc. ends up costing the systems more than if they'd went and got on meds earlier in the illness.

Probably true, but I never quite understood why. As a teen, I had no problem going into any drug store and buying them, and in my twenties and beyond, I'd buy them at the grocery store (bread, milk...condoms).

Maybe it was just a small town thing. I hated the dirty looks from the people at the counter, and you had to worry that someone who knew you/your parents would see you and call your parents etc.

I have no problem buying them now.

[chiwii]

I also don't agree that going to the doctor for every cold or stomach ache is necessarily a bad thing and a poor argument. You can't tell if its going to be a major illness if you don't get it checked out.

Yes, it is a bad thing. It would be absolutely irresponsible to use the finite health-care resources every time you feel ill. Doctors have guidelines on the symptoms that should trigger a call/visit to the office. Look at any of the major health-care information websites - they'll list conditions that can be treated at home and which symptoms require a trip to the doctor.

Also, doctors aren't going to waste their time looking for a major illness if a patient comes in complaining of simply having cold symptoms for a few days. They're going to tell them to go home take some OTC cold medicine, drink lots of water, and come back if they're not better in a week or so. The time the doctor wastes seeing this patient could have been spent on a patient that was really sick.

[dmaul1114]

Well that's true. People shouldn't go to the doctor at the first sign of a cold.

But if it still getting worse after 3 or 4 days, and they have symptoms like a fever, severe sore throat that's not improving, yellow/green mucus, any type of tightness or wheezing in the chest etc. they should go to the doctor rather than waiting a weak or more and letting things worse.

I've learned that the hard way several times in the past myself. Most colds I get either turn into sinus infection, go into my chest and flair up asthma/pneumonia or both. So I give a cold 3 or 4 days and if those symptoms are emerging and I'm still feeling worse each day rather than better I get to the doctor and get some meds. Otherwise I end up feeling like shit for 2 or 3 weeks.

Too many people hate going to the doctor and wait until they're extremely ill before going and end up being sick longer and having to take more meds etc.

[Clak]

I don't waste time going to a doctor usually, if my throat is sore and head a little stuffed up, I'll give ti a day and no more. After countless respiratory infections I know the symptoms well enough. If i wake up fine the next day it was allergies, otherwise it's probably sinusitis.

You don't even need to see a doctor for something like that though, nurse practitioners can handle stuff like that easily. I see that as being a big part of the future of medical care in the U.S., as so many MDs prefer to specialize rather than just doing general practice since specialties pay more. Common stuff will probably be handled by nurse practitioners.

[dohdough]

I don't waste time going to a doctor usually, if my throat is sore and head a little stuffed up, I'll give ti a day and no more. After countless respiratory infections I know the symptoms well enough. If i wake up fine the next day it was allergies, otherwise it's probably sinusitis.

You don't even need to see a doctor for something like that though, nurse practitioners can handle stuff like that easily. I see that as being a big part of the future of medical care in the U.S., as so many MDs prefer to specialize rather than just doing general practice since specialties pay more. Common stuff will probably be handled by nurse practitioners.
That's interesting that you mention this scenario because big box stores have been looking into providing more medical care than just flu shots for a few years. They're using the same argument that you're using; that nurses can take care of it. On the otherhand, doctors have also been fighting this sentiment for years as well. I'm not saying that nurses aren't able to do a good portion of the job, but doctors have much more specialized knowledge and I'd wager that most are general practitioners. Would I be comfortable with a nurse? I guess for somethings, but I'd need a more convincing argument if I was going to throw my support behind it considering how it will most likely be implemented ie Walmart/Target Health Clinic.

[Clak]

Well it's a fact that there is a lack of general practitioners overall in the U.S. and some of that is because there is more money in specializing. So basically if they want to stop that from happening then more docs need to stay in general practice instead of specializing.

I've also noticed, at least with my doctor, that we seem to be sent to specialists much more often now than in the past. I mean when I had fluid trapped in my ear I was sent to a very expensive ENT specialist, who basically just told me to wait and see if it drained on it's own. The only thing they did that my doctor couldn't was give me a hearing test. I paid hundreds of dollars over the course of a few visits to be told to wait it out basically.

[dmaul1114]

You should see an ENT Clak. I always got sinusitis and finally got it checked out last winter, I had a badly deviated septum and lots of blockages from polyps and scar tissue from 30 years of on and off sinus infections etc.

I had sinus surgery done in Februrary, and while recovery was a bitch it's helped a ton. I don't wake up stuffy every morning any more, I've had one cold since then and didn't get a sinus infection (though it did go to my chest and nearly got to pneumonia before I got to the doctor) etc.

That experience was another example of ridiculous medical charges though. Between the ENT and the hospital my insurance was billed around $27k. Of course they settled and paid well under half of that in actuality, but still absurd given it was an outpatient procedure where I was in the surgery center for 6 or 7 hours and in surgery for around 2 hours.

So definitely only do it if you have very good insurance. I had to fight with mine a bit, but ended up with only the $50 hospital copay.

[Clak]

Well like I said I'd seen an ENT for the ear thing and told him my whole history. I might get a sinus infection once or twice a year, usually goes away within a week of antibiotics, so I'm not that worried right now. If I had constant occurrences I know my doctor would have already said something about it anyway. He almost did once when I had a particularly hard to treat case, but that eventually was taken care of with the right medications as well.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, it's probably not worth it in that case. I was getting them a minimum of twice a year, and many times up to 4 or 5 times a year and taking 2-3 weeks to get over them each time.

Along with waking up stuffy pretty much every morning even when not sick etc. so I couldn't take it anymore and finally bit the bullet on the surgery (it was first recommended several years ago, but my insurance wasn't nearly as good then).

[camoor]

Well like I said I'd seen an ENT for the ear thing and told him my whole history. I might get a sinus infection once or twice a year, usually goes away within a week of antibiotics, so I'm not that worried right now. If I had constant occurrences I know my doctor would have already said something about it anyway. He almost did once when I had a particularly hard to treat case, but that eventually was taken care of with the right medications as well.

I used to have the same thing and it turned out it was my diet. I cut out dairy products and I have had only one sinus infection since, and it's been about 6 years. If it bothers you or you have other non-specific health issues try changing up your diet.

[dmaul1114]

They should be able to test you for that. There is a type of sinusitis that's caused by dietary allergies.

An easy way to rule it out is if your sinus infections only start as colds/bad seasonal allergies. i.e. you get a cold or have bad allergies and 3-5 or so days later you're all of a sudden fevered, super congested and blowing out green/yellow snot.

If that's the case then it's unlikely to be a food allergy problem, and more likely to be an issue with blockages like I had. In which case when you get a cold or allergy flare up, you get way more congested than the average person and that leads to bacterial infections.

If you're getting them more randomly without always having colds/allergies first, then a dietary allergy could well be behind it.

[dmaul1114]

Just saw a breaking news blurb on CNN that a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled the mandate requiring health care unconstitutional. It's on the top of cnn.com as well, but not story to link too yet.

Edit: Here's an article about it, or a short blurb anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/08/12/business/AP-US-Health-Overhaul.html?_r=1&hp


ATLANTA (AP) — A federal appeals court has struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law.

But the decision didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics say the law violates people's rights. The Justice Department counters that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.

An appeals court and three federal judges have upheld the law, and two have invalidated it. Experts say the debate ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And another one


(CNN) -- A federal appeals court Friday tossed out key provisions of the sweeping health care reform bill championed by President Obama, setting up a likely election-year showdown at the Supreme Court over the landmark legislation.

A divided 2-1 panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta found the law's "individual mandate" section, requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties -- to be an improper exercise of federal authority.

"The individual mandate exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional," wrote Chief Judge Joel Dubina. "This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives."

Significantly, the court concluded even though that key section to be unconstitutional, the entire law need not be set aside.

In fact, the judges said the law's expansion of the federal Medicaid program was constitutional, since states-- which administer it -- would not bear "the costs of the program's amplified enrollments."

The ruling conflicts with another federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which found the "individual mandate" to be lawful. That conflicts sets up a final ruling on the matter from the Supreme Court in coming months.

The cases are State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (11-11021, 11-11067).

[KingBroly]

Wait...


since states-- which administer it -- would not bear "the costs of the program's amplified enrollments."

Run that by me again.

I really hope they don't split this thing.

[dohdough]

Wait...

Run that by me again.

I really hope they don't split this thing.
Oh jeebus. That means that the federal government will provide funding to help the states bear the cost of increased enrollments. It's not like the states pay for their own roads on their own.

[KingBroly]

Oh jeebus. That means that the federal government will provide funding to help the states bear the cost of increased enrollments. It's not like the states pay for their own roads on their own.

And it's not like the Federal Government is 14 trillion in debt so they'll easily be able to afford it.

Oh wait...

[dohdough]

And it's not like the Federal Government is 14 trillion in debt so they'll easily be able to afford it.

Oh wait...
It's almost as if someone already answered this in another thread...

So what are you suggesting? That we simply allow insurance companies to run amok and allow anyone that can't afford medical care to be booted out of emergency rooms and/or hospitals?

Are you suggesting that we raise taxes on those that can afford it the most? Are you suggesting that we stop waging wars? Are you suggesting we give bigger tax breaks to those who need it least? Or maybe we should just let our roads crumble and our bridges collapse since we "can't afford it."

If we can find the money or go into debt to literally kill people for whatever reason; we should be able to find some money to make sure some people are able to live AND work. For an ideology that professes high morality, you sure do act in morally bankrupt ways.

[IRHari]

And it's not like the Federal Government is 14 trillion in debt so they'll easily be able to afford it.

Oh wait...

Why didn't we see statements like this being made when Bush kept increasing spending, despite the fact that we were also in debt at the time?

Oh wait...

[Knoell]

Why didn't we see statements like this being made when Bush kept increasing spending, despite the fact that we were also in debt at the time?

Oh wait...

Keep playing partison games while the debt continues to skyrocket through control of both parties.

[Msut77]

I don't mean to cross pollinate threads, but single payer healthcare is good old common sense.

So why aren't the usual suspects for it?

[Msut77]

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/malpractice-reform-in-texas-a-review/

[camoor]

Keep playing partison games while the debt continues to skyrocket through control of both parties.

Roger wilco.

[KingBroly]

Why didn't we see statements like this being made when Bush kept increasing spending, despite the fact that we were also in debt at the time?

Oh wait...

Questions about the debt started being raised on the Republican side in roughly 2005 or so, when things really came to head to boil over in the wars. Between late 2001 and 2004, people in this country wanted blood and didn't care about it then. I'm not really surprised that you failed to counter that argument with a year the Democrats started questioning the debt in our country.

But of course, it's not just the debt. It's the value of the dollar as well. The more we spend, the more the value of the dollar decreases. Obamacare is not going to make matters any better if it's Constitutional or if everything but the Individual Mandate is ruled legal, it's going to cost A TON of money that the country simply can ever afford to pay.

Now I think the Individual Mandate is going to be ruled Unconstitutional because as you should know it's going to come down to Kennedy, who, in the past has ruled that there are limits on the Commerce Clause. How he does the rest of the bill is entirely up for political debate (BTW, it's going to be a Political Decision, don't kid yourself) and at that point we could have a serious problem on our hands.

[dohdough]

Questions about the debt started being raised on the Republican side in roughly 2005 or so, when things really came to head to boil over in the wars. Between late 2001 and 2004, people in this country wanted blood and didn't care about it then. I'm not really surprised that you failed to counter that argument with a year the Democrats started questioning the debt in our country.

But of course, it's not just the debt. It's the value of the dollar as well. The more we spend, the more the value of the dollar decreases. Obamacare is not going to make matters any better if it's Constitutional or if everything but the Individual Mandate is ruled legal, it's going to cost A TON of money that the country simply can ever afford to pay.

Now I think the Individual Mandate is going to be ruled Unconstitutional because as you should know it's going to come down to Kennedy, who, in the past has ruled that there are limits on the Commerce Clause.But if it's ruled Constitutional, then guess what? Obama passed Communism.

There ya go! I edited that comment back in for you.

[camoor]

There ya go! I edited that comment back in for you.

Ahahaha. Kind of a dick move, but funny.

[IRHari]

I should've clarified, where was the tea party when Bush was spending? The only counter i hear is 'yeah we were against TARP'. It completely ignores all the spending he did on massive tax cuts, massive defense spending, massive education spending, and a massive RX drug plan with no plan to control costs.

[dmaul1114]

I did read something the other day where some people had did a survey of political opinions a few years ago (early 2000s I think) and then went back recently and interviewed the same people.

They did find that among those who are in the tea party now, you could predict that affiliation by using their responses to the earlier survey. So they had these views before, they just weren't organized into a movement. They where active though as one of the predictors is that they were more likely to have contacted their representatives than most of the rest of the sample.

It was in one of the major papers or news sites, so maybe a google search will pull it up.

[IRHari]

I think it's a tribal thing, that permeates both parties.

Liberals aren't as vocal under Obama as they were under Bush when it came to civil liberties, wars of choice. There's so much overlap between Bush and Obama policies yet you don't see the same amount of outrage from liberals now that you did back then.

Similarly, conservatives weren't very vocal (few exceptions, like Paulistinians) under Bush, not complaining about NCLB, Medicare Part D, his infringements of civil liberties. Talking to tea partiers and bringing up Bush, you wonder who ever approved of him at any point in his term. Conservatives didn't trust government at all when the big Satan aka Clinton was President. Suddenly we must trust our government to protect us from murslims.

That being said, progressive criticism of Obama is far more pervasive then 'tea party' criticism of Bush was.

[Msut77]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=1&ref=teapartymovement

[IRHari]

It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.”

ohai irony

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
Very interesting.

[Clak]

I linked to an study from Vanderbilt not long ago that said similar things. That tea partiers are like transformers, republicans in disguise.

[Msut77]

I said it from day one.

[UncleBob]

I linked to an study from Vanderbilt not long ago that said similar things. That tea partiers are like transformers, republicans in disguise.

Was this ever in question?

[Clak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=1&ref=teapartymovement
Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

I think this just made my day.

[Clak]

Was this ever in question?
From most of us sane folks? No. Though all I ever heard was that they were "small government conservatives" from them and many like yourself.

[UncleBob]

To clarify, I never claimed anything otherwise. It's painfully obvious that the Tea Party spun out of frustration with the Republican party's in ability to get things ("things" being stuff on the Tea Party agenda) done. TARP and the mass wins of Democrats (including the election of Obama) were very much catalysis in the entire movement - these two issues showed that the mainstream Republicans were out of touch with their roots (sensible fiscal spending - granted, some of us have known that for a long time...) and that the party was ripe for overhaul (mainstream America didn't want four more of Bush via McCain and crew).

The Republican party now finds itself struggling internally, with the old guard often clashing with the new kids, all while trying to keep a united front against the other guys (Democrats, of course). The question is, will the old guard win, keeping the party more of the same for years to come, will the new guys take over and transform the Republican party into the ideal "Tea Party" (without getting corrupted in the same style their predecessors did), or will enough Tea Party activists splinter off to create a viable third party?

The third option there is least likely - the only chance I see at having a viable third party would be a group that seriously wants to tackle government spending, without massive cuts to social programs and is willing to tackle social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, clearing the air on those once and for all. There's a rather large group of independents who like hearing the "fiscally sound" rhetoric that just get completely turned off by talk about banning same-sex marriage and such. If someone was to seriously cultivate these people, I think they could manage a viable third party.

[Msut77]

The tea party was formed to push a fake storyline. It was never an organic movement.

[dmaul1114]

I linked to an study from Vanderbilt not long ago that said similar things. That tea partiers are like transformers, republicans in disguise.

That's never really been unclear. Who hasn't known from day 1 that the tea party wasn't simply the far right part of the republican base. The small government and very religious portion particularly?

I mean we've been a two party system for ages now, so pretty much anyone on the right was voting republican (other than some libertarians) and pretty much everyone on the left was voting democrat.

So it's just a sign of why we need more parties. At the least the Tea Party should be come a real party, and then we need a far left party for all of us frustrated with Obama and other center to right-leaning democrats.

[UncleBob]

That's never really been unclear. Who hasn't known from day 1 that the tea party wasn't simply the far right part of the republican base. The small government and very religious portion particularly?

I mean we've been a two party system for ages now, so pretty much anyone on the right was voting republican (other than some libertarians) and pretty much everyone on the left was voting democrat.

Can we get a party that has the "small government" agenda without the "religious" portion please? :D

So it's just a sign of why we need more parties. At the least the Tea Party should be come a real party, and then we need a far left party for all of us frustrated with Obama and other center to right-leaning democrats.

Communist and Socialist - take your pick. :D

[Clak]

Like I said, I don't think we've (liberals) ever not known that, but these folks have denied it the whole time. Acting like they're somehow smarter than the av-er-age republican. When the truth is that they're just the right of the right who got pissed off. Now like you said, we need the left's equivalent. Can't eb the socialist party because we'll all be labeled goose stepping nazis.

[UncleBob]

Acting like they're somehow smarter than the av-er-age republican. When the truth is that they're just the right of the right who got pissed off.
Why can't these two go hand-in-hand? People in the Republican party finally figured out that the folks they were electing to represent them weren't representing them... I'd say that's smarter than folks who keep electing the same people who don't represent them... (this sounds familiar)...

Now like you said, we need the left's equivalent. Can't eb the socialist party because we'll all be labeled goose stepping nazis.

Maybe you should worry less about what you're labeled. Look at all the negative labels the left and the media attach to the Tea Party - yet, they keep on keepin' on.

[Clak]

If you think for a minute that someone like Bachman, or any of these other jokers will be any different than Bush you're delusional.

Calling someone a teabagger is a far cry from pictures of people done up in nazi garb. And since here in the U.S. socialist = nazi and communist = Russians/Chinese, neither works. But then I don't really expect that you'd understand the difference anyhow.

[UncleBob]

If you think for a minute that someone like Bachman, or any of these other jokers will be any different than Bush you're delusional.

Did I say anything like that?

Calling someone a teabagger is a far cry from pictures of people done up in nazi garb.

Yeah, because teabagger is the worst term used to describe members of the tea party...

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, the socialist/communist label won't fly because of the association people have to Nazi's, the Russians and Chinese etc. Silly, but that's the way it is.

It would have to have a new name so it just get slammed with new criticisms like the Tea Party has, rather than immediately having no legitimacy due to the negative image of socialism and communism from past decades in other countries (and currently in places like China).

[UncleBob]

So... you want to take a mixture of the ideas and philosophies of the Communist and Socialist parties, but you want none of the negativity that goes along with those parties?

I recall a conversation... "We need more politicians like Bernie Sanders!" "You mean self-admitted Socialists?" "No no no..."

[mykevermin]

a group that seriously wants to tackle government spending, without massive cuts to social programs

...is a group that should not be taken seriously. That's a group that wants candy for breakfast and a bathing suit body.

[dmaul1114]

So... you want to take a mixture of the ideas and philosophies of the Communist and Socialist parties, but you want none of the negativity that goes along with those parties?


I want none of the negative stereotypes and misconceptions associated with those labels through the world wars and decades of propaganda through the cold war etc.

Throw those labels on them and the ideas will never get a remotely fair shake as they'll be disregarded due to bias against those labels. The ideas are hard enough to sell without trying to sell them explicitly under those labels. Call it something new and hopefully you can get more people to at least listen to the ideas and evaluate them on their merits rather than just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nah, nah, nah, socialism, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah."

[UncleBob]

...is a group that should not be taken seriously. That's a group that wants candy for breakfast and a bathing suit body.

You're right, Myke... out of control government spending is the only way to have sustainable social programs. What could possibly go wrong when you create a government that spends uncontrollably and a population that ends up depending on it...

For the sane individuals, it's more like a group that wants a well-rounded diet, with plenty of exercise and the bathing suit body.

[Msut77]

I want none of the negative stereotypes and misconceptions associated with those labels through the world wars and decades of propaganda through the cold war etc.

Throw those labels on them and the ideas will never get a remotely fair shake as they'll be disregarded due to bias against those labels. The ideas are hard enough to sell without trying to sell them explicitly under those labels. Call it something new and hopefully you can get more people to at least listen to the ideas and evaluate them on their merits rather than just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nah, nah, nah, socialism, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah."

Consider the fact shitards never bother to define Socialism or Communism. Either way being for the universal health care makes you a stalinist no more than being vegetatian makes you a Nazi.

[dohdough]

So... you want to take a mixture of the ideas and philosophies of the Communist and Socialist parties, but you want none of the negativity that goes along with those parties?

I recall a conversation... "We need more politicians like Bernie Sanders!" "You mean self-admitted Socialists?" "No no no..."
Who the fuck said that?

[dmaul1114]

.... no more than being vegetatian makes you a Nazi.

Jesus. Even the plants are getting labeled these days! ;)

[mykevermin]

Tone down the rhetoric, folks. Leave our leafy greens out of this.

[IRHari]

You're right, Myke... out of control government spending is the only way to have sustainable social programs. What could possibly go wrong when you create a government that spends uncontrollably and a population that ends up depending on it...

Uh, isn't myke taking the centrist beltway view on this? Why are you trying to mock him for this? He's saying that people who want to control spending but don't want to touch Medicare, SS or Medicaid are frauds.

I'd be willing to bet they're more than willing to touch Medicaid, since it more than likely doesn't affect them. Socialism for me, none for you.

[UncleBob]

Uh, isn't myke taking the centrist beltway view on this?

How is it, in any way whatsoever, "centrist" to say that individuals who want the government to get overall spending under control without massive cuts to social spending should be ignored?

A fiscally sound government with a reasonable, functioning, well-developed social safety net should be the "centrist" position.

[mykevermin]

Centrist or not, I don't think "hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too" is a necessarily partisan thing to point out.

Just sayin'.

[Romis]

funny how no one ever equates Healthcare is vital part of keeping the Workforce healthy & productive/generating revenues
Neither do they rant over current services already socialized: Police, Fire/Rescue, Government & Military

[UncleBob]

Centrist or not, I don't think "hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too" is a necessarily partisan thing to point out.

Just sayin'.

So... if you don't think you can do both, which should our government do? Out of control spending with social programs? or controlled spending with little-to-no social programs?

[Msut77]

funny how no one ever equates Healthcare is vital part of keeping the Workforce healthy & productive/generating revenues
Neither do they rant over current services already socialized: Police, Fire/Rescue, Government & Military

I just met you and I love you.

[IRHari]

Centrist or not, I don't think "hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too" is a necessarily partisan thing to point out.

Just sayin'.

Fucking this. Poll after poll shows that people like the idea of 'cutting spending' but they never want to give up the shit that benefits them or that they like.

[camoor]

So... if you don't think you can do both, which should our government do? Out of control spending with social programs? or controlled spending with little-to-no social programs?


Because it's all or nothing.

[UncleBob]

Fucking this. Poll after poll shows that people like the idea of 'cutting spending' but they never want to give up the shit that benefits them or that they like.

Of course - no one *wants* to give up stuff they like.
That's why we have a system in place that's supposed to prioritize the "needs" over the "wants".

Because it's all or nothing.
Hey, I'm the one saying that we can have a fiscally sound government along side reasonable social spending.

Myke's the one saying we can't.

[IRHari]

Hey, I'm the one saying that we can have a fiscally sound government along side reasonable social spending.

So Social Security and Medicare are things the government should do, but telling companies they can't discriminate against black people isn't?

[Romis]

So Social Security and Medicare are things the government should do, but telling companies they can't discriminate against black people isn't?

Since when to companies actually care about what our government says or even stay loyal to the nation that gave helped them get to be where they are? Most corporations only care about profits.

They have little problem with breaking laws and taking things to court/paying penalties if after all the conflict they still make money by not altering there actions

or they'll just move their business somewhere outside of US. but of course keep the managment office in the states


I just met you and I love you.
hmmmm don't really know if your Ms. Msut or Mr. Msut so don't know whether your gesture is really Cool or kinda Creepy, lol

[Msut77]

Little from column A little from column B.

[UncleBob]

So Social Security and Medicare are things the government should do, but telling companies they can't discriminate against black people isn't?

Those things aren't even on the same shelf in the bookstore.

[IRHari]

I'll take that as a yes. Just summing up the things you think gov't should/shouldn't do.

[mykevermin]

That's why we have a system in place that's supposed to prioritize the "needs" over the "wants".

Give us an example of this system in action. We _____ tax cuts for the wealthy, but we only _____ an extension of unemployment benefits in a period of slow-to-negative job growth and high unemployment.

Take your "want" and "need" and fill in the blanks in that sentence.

Hey, I'm the one saying that we can have a fiscally sound government along side reasonable social spending.

Myke's the one saying we can't.

No, I said that people we can not cut spending to a balanced budget while having no impact on programs. Especially social programs, since those don't result in hifalutin' golf vacations or massive campaign contributions or bloated PACs.

Not until you recognize that the single greatest threat to our democracy is the political interests of the wealthy elite. We can cut spending by nationalizing all defense-related components of KBR or lockheed martin, because it is immoral to allow a company to have the size of its profit margin contingent upon whether or not we are in a state of war. If you want to cut spending and not impact social programs, you must slay the great beast of oligarchy. You want to go straight to the final boss, as it were.

The public is fickle; not only will we roll over and allow KBR to make billions in profit giving the same crusty, disgusting food loaves to our soldiers as well as our inmates, we will turn on each other very quickly. See how many of us reacted to new stories of insufficiently armored vehicles - and Rumsfeld's flippant "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" tale. We are incredulous that we would defund our military to any degree, and allow the military-industrial complex to move along, consuming more tax dollars in its wake.

When schools are so desperately underfunded, however, we assail the teachers for being greedy pigs and strip away their rights to negotiate the terms of their employment. Funny, that. Wants versus needs, as you said?

So we can cut, but substantive cuts that matter require a sudden onset of critical thinking skills and genuine introspection that will damn near overthrow our way of life and thinking about the nature of the world we live in. And not only do I typically think that's unlikely to happen, it certainly won't happen anytime soon - Fall tv series are set to debut soon. The revolution can wait.

Also, raise taxes on the wealthy, raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 35%.

[UncleBob]

No, I said that people we can not cut spending to a balanced budget while having no impact on programs.

I'm not sure what you said here, but this isn't what you said before. I said we want the government to seriously tackle the spending problem without making massive cuts to social programs.

You chimed in with a /witty/ remark with the implication that it isn't possible.

Now, you went on a huge rant about how it is possible, but that the people don't have the stomach for it.

Good Job.

[IRHari]

How is it, in any way whatsoever, "centrist" to say that individuals who want the government to get overall spending under control without massive cuts to social spending should be ignored?

I don't want people like that to be ignored or ridiculed, but they are, especially by the beltway DC media. When Democrats say let's tackle the deficit without hitting social programs the Joe Scarboroughs, Chris Wallaces, and David Gregorys of the world laugh them out of town.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Progressive House Caucus had a deficit plan that reduced the deficit without hitting social programs. It got close to no media coverage at all.

[mykevermin]

defense is a social program?

[IRHari]

defense is a social program?

If people are taking advantage of social programs, and since corporations are people, then sure, corporations...er sorry 'people' like KBR are taking advantage of social programs. ;)

[UncleBob]

defense is a social program?

No one said anything of the like.

[Msut77]

defense is a social program?

It is a massive jobs program, although for some reason not many think about it like that.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I'll put that on gender. Getting condoms is usually the guy's task, and I think young males are embarrassed about getting condoms in general, much less going to the health department and asking for them.

I think women, who have more to lose in an unwanted pregnancy, would be less resistant to getting on freely provided birth control pills. Especially if they can get them through their regular doctor rather than the health clinic.

Pure conjecture though. Only research after free birth control is more widely available will tell us how many take advantage of it and if it has an impact on rates of unwanted pregnancies.

The two largest groups of unwanted pregnancies are teen pregnancies and low income pregnancies.

I would think teens wouldn't want to go get birth control or have it around for fear their parents would find it and know about their sexual history. Also, most teens have the whole "it won't happen to me" mentality.

For low-income (Medicaid) individuals, even if they did go through the trouble to pick up the free birth control, I question whether it would get used effectively. As someone else pointed out, free condoms are widely available. Sure in most instances the guy will pick it up, but knowing that guys are forgetful and horny, and knowing the more adverse effects of a pregnancy on the woman, wouldn't it just be easier for them to have some on hand for an emergency? It's the same thing with birth control. You have to take it everyday at approximately the same time or it loses it's effectiveness. Miss one day and your risking pregnancy. Also, depending on if she gets an infection and on antibiotics, etc. it loses it's effectiveness and other contraceptive should be used.

My wife was so anal about not getting pregnant that we doubled it up (birth control + condoms) and trust me, she wouldn't budge on that. Sadly, I believe for low income individuals, their benefits (medicaid, food stamps, welfare) are tied to dependents so usually pregnancy = greater level of income. And they usually are home watching kids anyway so there is little deterrent to just having more kids that someone else can pay for.

[smallsharkbigbite]

funny how no one ever equates Healthcare is vital part of keeping the Workforce healthy & productive/generating revenues
Neither do they rant over current services already socialized: Police, Fire/Rescue, Government & Military

I'm pretty sure they do rant over all those services. I mean look at Wisconsin & Ohio with their latest legislation to take away benefits from government unions. Look at the whole debt debacle and the goal to shrink the national government. Look at all the polls online that say cutting military is the easiest way to get the federal budget back in-line. In general people feel that anything that has to do with the government is both bureaucratically bloated and highly inefficient.

The biggest problem with this health care reform is that it adds more patients to the healthcare pie and takes money out of the system. You tell me how that will lead to better care.

If the government looked at Health Care as essential to the economy, that would be great. But they don't, they look at as a line item on a budget that is growing and needs to be cut. With this mentality and a socialization of healthcare, we are looking at the examples given to us.

Britain - well known cap of $20,000 an individual. If you require constant care at that level, you aren't worth it have a nice life. Oh, and same boat as us trying to cut health care costs.

France - If you live in New York your probably okay, but if you live in a rural area you may have to drive a 2-3 hours to get to a hospital because they've found efficiencies through consolidating hospitals into large service centers. Oh and they are in the same boat as us in trying to cut those darn healthcare expenses.

Canada - Trying to cut healthcare expenses and in general long wait times for anything that is non-life threatening.

If you are up for those, let's do it. Oh, and I hope your not expecting any cancer drugs or further advances in healthcare. Of course, it doesn't have to be that way, they could look at healthcare as an essential investment in our society, but nothing that has ever come out of congress's mouth has ever came out to be more than cost cutting measures surrounding healthcare.

Interesting side note too. Would socialized healthcare be a nationalization of the healthcare industry? To my knowledge the US has never done this. But if they were, I'd nationalize the oil industry since they are the only industry that the government hasn't destroyed yet and they make quite a bit of profit. Then they could use those profits to pump into healthcare, social security etc. 8-)

[mykevermin]

How will it take money out of the system, as you say?

[smallsharkbigbite]

How will it take money out of the system, as you say?

Lol, this is pretty complicated so I'll try to keep it short and sweet to save time (both mine and yours). First (non-related to health care affordability act), this is the first year in the Medicare programs history that they have paid less for services (in aggregate) than they did the prior year. See link below, they are paying 0.1% on average less than last year. This is a collective $142M being taken out of health systems nationwide.

http://www.fiercehealthfinance.com/story/hospitals-face-inpatient-medicare-payment-cuts-fy-2011/2010-04-20

With the deficit and Republicans attacking Medicare funding, reimbursement will only go down in the future.



Now onto your question. There are three ways affordable care act will pay less, and then a scenario in which providers will receive less. Little background first.

First, we need a basic understanding of provider reimbursement. Not every payer is equal. Private insurers pay more than Medicare which pays more than Medicaid which pay more than uninsured. In general, providers make money on private insurers and use this money to subsidize all other payers.

http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/07/5-myths-and-facts-about-medicarein-pictures-.html

They say it's a myth but their own research shows only 31% of hospitals made money on Medicare in 2008 and that on average a hospital loses 7.2% on a Medicare patient. I'm curious too, because their are a large group of hospitals classified as "Critical Access Hospitals". These hospitals are paid cost + 3%. So they are guaranteed a profit regardless of their cost structure. I wonder if they are included in this survey inflating the 31%. I couldn't tell from the survey.

Next, see below. Due to health care exchanges having the expectation that premiums will be low, most people expect them to reimburse providers somewhere between Medicare and Medicaid rates. Ouch.

http://www.larsonallen.com/Health_Care/Blog/Insurance_Exchange_Insights__Health_Reform_Will_Co ver_More_Patients_but_Will_Providers_Revenues_Go_U p.aspx


Okay now the 3 ways.

1. DSH payments will decrease. DSH (Disproportionate share hospital) are hospitals that have a large amount of uninsured, Medicaid, or Medicare patients. I.E. a large base of customers that they lose money on. The government subsidizes these hospitals for their cost.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation-issues/all-eyes-on-dsh-payment-cuts-the-future-of-dsh-payments-in-healthcare-reform.html

The thought process is that hospitals no longer need safety net payments because everyone will be insured. We'll see how it plays out, but as discussed above not every payer is equal. And most, if not all, providers are set up to lose money on people in the exchanges as noted above.

2. Bundling of Medicare payments. What this is, is the government wants to make one payment per treatment. I.E. you go to a physician and he says you need a surgery. You go to the hospital and have the surgery. Then you have rehab to recovery from the surgery. The government wants to make one bundled payment for all that instead of paying the physician provider, the hospital provider, then the rehab provider.

Now initially, they don't plan on lowering payments (if you accept bundled payments). To accept bundled payments you have to own the physician practice, hospital, and rehab facility. So it encourages consolidation within the industry. Then later they plan on ratcheting back payments from all the efficiencies that are maintained by operating all (didn't know congress ran health care organizations and knew how inefficient they were). Now, say you are just a hospital and don't have the funds to purchase the other parts, then the affordable care act is going to cut your payments immediately (in 2014 I think) for not participating in the bundling program.

3. Built into the law is a provision for accountable care organizations. I'm not going to go into the final product but we'll just start with the beginning stages. They are going to measure providers on a number of metrics that will continue changing. The bottom 25% of hospitals will have a 2% reduction of payments. This will not be redistributed to the top hospitals. Now you may say the bottom 25% of hospitals should be paid less but I have a few problems with that. A. The metrics are constantly changing and being added to. So it's hard to stay in front of what metrics actually matter. B. Not every one is created equal. The hospital can do everything right for the patient and because the patient doesn't listen to the orders, doesn't take the medication etc, they can end up as a re-admission and that punishes the hospital. C. As the bottom hospitals start to either go out of business or get consolidated, a hospital that was an average hospital may fall into the bottom 25% of hospitals. As discusses a .1% payment reduction is 142M accross the health system so what does a 2% payment reduction do.

The last point is hypothetical. When I last left an employer in around 2008, my cobra benefits said my health care cost for me and my wife were $800 a month. This is $9,600 a year. I paid about 2,600 through payroll deductions which means my employer floated $7,000 for the two of us. Now the penalty for not providing insurance is $750. It will be easy for employers to pay the $750 penalty rather than pay the insurance premiums. They could even throw their employees a couple of thousand of dollars and act like it's a big benefit that they are allowing you to go out an purchase it yourself. Now, as discussed well above, providers make lots of money off of private insurance and will most likely lose money off people in the health exchange. If enough people move from private insurance to the exchanges, it will be catastrophic for the system.

Sorry, tried to keep it short.

[tivo]

From CBO director Douglas Elmendorf.....
Therefore, enacting PPACA would increase debt held by government accounts more than it would decrease debt held by the public, and would thus increase gross federal debt. (http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11005/01-22-HI_Fund.pdf)

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11005/01-22-HI_Fund.pdf

Paul Ryan does a good job explaining...

eyjpzvtkz70&feature=player_embedded

[Msut77]

Now onto your question. There are three ways affordable care act will pay less, and then a scenario in which providers will receive less.

Justify why the average American should pay so much more than other countries in the first place.

[dopa345]

Just an idea I came up with. If your lifetime Medicare costs exceed what you paid into the system, then at your death, your estate is levied an additional tax equating to 50% of the difference (if this exceeds the total value of the estate, then the remainder is forgiven. You can set additional caps as well (limit the levy to $50,000 or so). If at your death, your cost of care is less than what you paid into it, than your estate is reimbursed 50% of the difference. This doesn't sacrifice access to care to the elderly and gives some financial incentive for patients to use the health care system judiciously.

[tivo]

Just an idea I came up with. If your lifetime Medicare costs exceed what you paid into the system, then at your death, your estate is levied an additional tax equating to 50% of the difference (if this exceeds the total value of the estate, then the remainder is forgiven. If at your death, your cost of care is less than what you paid into it, than your estate is reimbursed 50% of the difference. This doesn't sacrifice access to care to the elderly and gives some financial incentive for patients to use the health care system judiciously.

I like it but it would worsen the economic situation. We'd be dolling out m(b)illions in unused medical expenses while trying to get 50% of the "estate" of poor people who couldn't afford to pay for their own treatment.

i.e. These people...
The top 1% of the population with the highest spending accounted for 27% of aggregate health care spending. The highest-spending 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all spending... don't have money. So 50% x (small estate value- HUGE medical expenses) = $0.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Justify why the average American should pay so much more than other countries in the first place.

I'm not going to justify why the American should pay so much more than other countries. But this health care bill is payment reform, not health care reform.

Providers don't have that large of margins across the country. People making lots of money in healthcare are:

1. Physicians - paid a premium many times more than in foreign countries.
2. Drug companies
3. Implant/Supply providers
4. Equipment manufacturer

This bill pays providers less with the assumption they will be able to squeeze the above parties bringing down the total cost of care. That may happen, but it will happen over a number of years and much pain as a lot of providers will go under.

The funniest thing is doctors run everything and they are in high demand so they'll continue to squeeze large salaries. One of the articles I linked talked about hospitals over testing. We don't decide the tests, doctors decide the tests and generally doctors don't have ownership in the hospital. Medicare/Mediciad paid a fixed amount so more tests don't bring in additional revenue just costs. But do you want the hospital administration telling the doctors which tests to do.

This also has the ability to make unintended consequences.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BJK/is_3_16/ai_n13454905/

Retainer to be able to see a doctor awesome. So now I have to have insurance and pay a retainer. It hasn't affected all parts of the country yet, but you can see how it would be attractive to a doctor. Deal with Medicare/Medicaid regulations, declining pay, and being overworked. Or do a lot less and make the amount of money that you want. And generally because of the physician shortage, you'll always have customers.

[Msut77]

I'm not going to justify why the American should pay so much more than other countries.

Why not?

Providers don't have that large of margins across the country.

{Citation needed}

Also please define provider.

[dmaul1114]

I do think a big part of the problem is doctor's salaries. That it's $200-300 billed to insurance for a simple sick visit where you see the doctor for 5 minutes and no tests are ordered etc. absurd. Much less the higher fees specialists charge.

Not to mention the absurd charges for tests like cat scans etc.

But I don't know much of anything about the health care industry so I don't know if that's greed from physicians and/or a consequence of high malpractice insurance and taken on tons of student loans for med school etc. Or if it's a problem the insurance industry is driving etc.

To part of that, it's always seemed to me that med school should be like getting a Ph D in the social or hard sciences where most students are on assistantships where they get free tuition and a stipend. Rather than making them take on tons of loans usually.

I can get for things like law school and MBAs that those things aren't offered as they expect students to make a lot of money afterward (which is largely a myth) and the business mindset is applicable, but I don't think it's healthy to take the same approach to training doctors. Do we really want our doctors to have the same mindsets as lawyers and businessmen and thus be focused on making big bucks more than anything else?

[dohdough]

Just an idea I came up with. If your lifetime Medicare costs exceed what you paid into the system, then at your death, your estate is levied an additional tax equating to 50% of the difference (if this exceeds the total value of the estate, then the remainder is forgiven. You can set additional caps as well (limit the levy to $50,000 or so). If at your death, your cost of care is less than what you paid into it, than your estate is reimbursed 50% of the difference. This doesn't sacrifice access to care to the elderly and gives some financial incentive for patients to use the health care system judiciously.
Wow...this is really fucking dumb on so many levels. At what point should the elderly be "more judicious" when almost every single ailment can literally lead to death? Also, this is an atrociously regressive tax on the poor. Even considering current costs of treatments, a lifetime contribution could be wiped out by breaking your hip. Should grandma or grandpa really have to decide on getting that hip fixed instead of draining the remainder of their savings?

I do think a big part of the problem is doctor's salaries. That it's $200-300 billed to insurance for a simple sick visit where you see the doctor for 5 minutes and no tests are ordered etc. absurd. Much less the higher fees specialists charge.
Even WITH some tests, it's still only a few minutes as they aren't the ones taking samples, in radiology, etc.;)

Not to mention the absurd charges for tests like cat scans etc.

But I don't know much of anything about the health care industry so I don't know if that's greed from physicians and/or a consequence of high malpractice insurance and taken on tons of student loans for med school etc. Or if it's a problem the insurance industry is driving etc.
I wouldn't put my money on physician greed as high on the list, but it'd certainly come after the insurance industry driving up costs. Malpractice insurance may sound like a lot, but if it was really an issue, we'd have even fewer docters than we have now, especially with the costs of schooling. Then again, being a physician puts you well above the avergae household in the US even WITH lower medicare/-caid reimbursements, unlike how sharkbite is arguing.

To part of that, it's always seemed to me that med school should be like getting a Ph D in the social or hard sciences where most students are on assistantships where they get free tuition and a stipend. Rather than making them take on tons of loans usually.

I can get for things like law school and MBAs that those things aren't offered as they expect students to make a lot of money afterward (which is largely a myth) and the business mindset is applicable, but I don't think it's healthy to take the same approach to training doctors. Do we really want our doctors to have the same mindsets as lawyers and businessmen and thus be focused on making big bucks more than anything else?
Residencies actually pay a decent wage, not counting hours of course. And if they go into provate practice or practice in a hospital, they ain't hurting for money and get paid well enough to live a very comfortable lifestyle while paying off their loans.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Why not?



{Citation needed}

Also please define provider.

Why not? I'm posting why this health care plan is I believe a poor plan. I gave a few areas that should be targeted to remove costs. You disagree let me know your plan. Otherwise, I'm not going to draw up a 10,000 page detail of what I do, especially since no one in congress cares.

Citation, this is timely:

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2011/08/metrohealths_misses_budget_pro.html

From the article:

MetroHealth, like all of Northeast Ohio's hospitals, faced a slew of industry pressures and a "very challenging" economic environment, said Bill Ryan, the president and chief executive of the regional hospital group Center for Health Affairs. "I think everybody is in a pretty tight situation," Ryan said, adding that all area hospitals and health systems are operating "very lean."



Also:
Moran declined to say whether there would be a round of layoffs this year but Fountain said, "I can't imagine that you can get to where we need to go without some sort of reduction in personnel."



I think this will be a trend in the hospital setting.

[Msut77]

Why not?

A comparison that doesn't take into effect bang for the buck considering the different systems out there isn't much of a comparison at all.

I'm posting why this health care plan is I believe a poor plan.

And I am trying to help you by pointing out where you are wrong, no need to thank me.

especially since no one in congress cares.

That is the rub, there is nothing that is like the reform I would like to see that can make it through congress.

There is plenty of waste in the system, however the waste spells revenue streams for many large powerful organizations.

Citation, this is timely:

So provider is a term you use in place of hospital?

[smallsharkbigbite]

Wow...this is really fucking dumb on so
I wouldn't put my money on physician greed as high on the list, but it'd certainly come after the insurance industry driving up costs. Malpractice insurance may sound like a lot, but if it was really an issue, we'd have even fewer docters than we have now, especially with the costs of schooling. Then again, being a physician puts you well above the average household in the US even WITH lower medicare/-caid reimbursements, unlike how sharkbite is arguing.

It depends what level of physician your looking at. Family docs don't make that much, surgeons make a lot. But if I needed a surgery I'd want the best guy looking at it. Goes back to are people willing to pay for those costs. I believe in general that we have one of the best levels of care in the world. People like to say we don't, but our population is highly stressed, fat, eats awfully, and doesn't exercise. I know too many people that have had quadruple bi-pass surgeries. Then people cherry pick and say our life expectancy is ONLY 78.

That said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/health/policy/16medicaid.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-06-20-medicare_N.htm

The nice thing about being an in-demand physician is you can pick a patient base of mainly insured individuals. Which means that in general Medicaid patients will use the ER as their primary source of care. It's usually not that bad with Medicare, but if they ever go through with significant cuts, that could change. And yes, using the ER as a primary care vehicle is extremely costly.

[smallsharkbigbite]

A comparison that doesn't take into effect bang for the buck considering the different systems out there isn't much of a comparison at all.



And I am trying to help you by pointing out where you are wrong, no need to thank me.



That is the rub, there is nothing that is like the reform I would like to see that can make it through congress.

There is plenty of waste in the system, however the waste spells revenue streams for many large powerful organizations.



So provider is a term you use in place of hospital?

I listed a brief comparison of what I thought of social health care, and I don't much like it. Bang for buck = rationing of care? Well, I'll have to think of a $ value of life then I'll get back to you on ways to ration care. It certainly is more costly if you try to preserve life.

Here's a link for you:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2005/RP1109.pdf

So yeah, treating elderly patients is expensive. Typical expenditures of almost $25k in the last year of life. Well, A. it's hard to know when someone is going to die or if they are going through a rough patch. B. In my opinion, it's a sad day when we turn our back on the elderly because people don't want to pay more taxes. To my knowledge, no other country goes through this effort to serve the elderly in this fashion, which will add to cost.

Certainly the cost of universities and malpractice are reasons the US pays more for doctors as well. Also, their patent protection is pretty favorable to drug companies. Lots of reasons why it costs more. I'd go after those instead of just paying less and hoping for trickle down economics to work (I thought only republicans were into that).

I'll thank you as soon as you give a nice plan. I listed several points and you cherry picked one you don't like and say fail. Please list your ideal plan so I can do the same. Very curious on your ideas on all the waste in the system. Are you in health care management?

I used provider mainly for hospital, but tried to stay generic enough to include primary care. When you get into the specialist realm, margins are largely still pretty good.

[Msut77]

Bang for buck = rationing of care?

Think life expectancy, patient satisfaction etc. compared to cost.

Our system ranks lower than countries that spend much less.

This includes countries with plenty of fatties such as Germany and the UK.

Well, I'll have to think of a $ value of life then I'll get back to you on ways to ration care. It certainly is more costly if you try to preserve life.

The thing about "rationing" is that there is always a line no one would disagree with, should someone who is 94 years old with say terminal cancer receive an organ transplant that would extend their life by a matter of weeks?

In a country where tens of thousands of people die due to lack of access to healthcare?

Certainly the cost of universities and malpractice are reasons the US pays more as well.

They aren't big reasons.

As for controlling drug prices etc., it will basically never happen not in any foreseeable future with our current political system in place. The same goes for the health insurance industry and how their overhead is killing us.

Please list your ideal plan so I can do the same.

The CAG libs had our own straw poll months ago, IIRC it was a tie between Taiwan and France's.

[dohdough]

Looks like we've got another live one here!

It depends what level of physician your looking at. Family docs don't make that much, surgeons make a lot.
Define not making "that much" and "make a lot."

But if I needed a surgery I'd want the best guy looking at it. Goes back to are people willing to pay for those costs.
What the hell does this have to do with patients not being able to afford care and how imposing a 50% or $50k tax on an estate being an extremely regressive tax? Absolutley nothing. Save your talking points argument for someone that's arguing with you about them to begin with. But since you want to engage in it, I'm going to oblige.

I believe in general that we have one of the best levels of care in the world.
Sure it is...the caveat being if you can afford it. Kinda like that retainer thing you mentioned...affordability is the main barrier to entry.

People like to say we don't, but our population is highly stressed, fat, eats awfully, and doesn't exercise.
Access and availability are very different from existence.

I know too many people that have had quadruple bi-pass surgeries.
Which is again an issue in access and availability. Not everyone that needs a bi-pass GETS ONE.

Then people cherry pick and say our life expectancy is ONLY 78.
Actually, it isn't. There are actually large variances when you break it down by race and class.

That said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/health/policy/16medicaid.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-06-20-medicare_N.htm

The nice thing about being an in-demand physician is you can pick a patient base of mainly insured individuals. Which means that in general Medicaid patients will use the ER as their primary source of care. It's usually not that bad with Medicare, but if they ever go through with significant cuts, that could change.
What the heck are you talking about here?

[smallsharkbigbite]

Think life expectancy, patient satisfaction etc. compared to cost.

Our system ranks lower than countries that spend much less.

This includes countries with plenty of fatties such as Germany and the UK.



The thing about "rationing" is that there is always a line no one would disagree with, should someone who is 94 years old with say terminal cancer receive an organ transplant that would extend their life by a matter of weeks?

In a country where tens of thousands of people die due to lack of access to healthcare?



They aren't big reasons.

As for controlling drug prices etc., it will basically never happen not in any foreseeable future with out current system in place.



The CAG libs had our own straw poll months ago, IIRC it was a tie between Taiwan and France's.
Rationing is a very slippery slope. I've met people that doctors have given less than 10% to live longer than a week that have lived several years after that. Healthcare is a science, but it's an imperfect science. Once you okay rationing, it's easy to keep pushing the envelope, because yes, a large large part of our healthcare expense goes to servicing elderly individuals. Once you have continuing budget issues (like we will) and a growing population (which we have) at what point do you just create a cut-off and say anybody over 70 years old regardless of previous health doesn't get healthcare?

Can you provide a study listing that 10,000s of individuals die from lack of access to care a year. I'm just surprised because it's a law that ERs have to serve anyone that show up. And based on the pain hospitals are feeling, there are alot of people without insurance showing up to be cared for.

Taiwan is 1/2 the size of Ohio and France is 2 times the size of Colorado. Both have solid population density throughout the space. If we implement those systems, hope you live in a city. A major cost of the healthcare system we have now is that ERs are equipped usually within a 15/30 minute drive and are capable of a large range of procedures. Most of these items are mandated by our government. It would cost less to have a small outpatient center every 30-45 min and a large ER that is capable of a large range procedures within a 3-4 hour range. But I'm still not sure we could show the savings, because there are lots of low population density areas in the US. We could not provide them with any healthcare at all I guess.

Still waiting to hear your ideas on waste though. Unless rationing, socialization, and it looks like you also have a problem with drug costs are what you are looking at.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Looks like we've got another live one here!


Define not making "that much" and "make a lot."
Do a google search. It's easy to see what they make.

What the hell does this have to do with patients not being able to afford care and how imposing a 50% or $50k tax on an estate being an extremely regressive tax? Absolutley nothing. Save your talking points argument for someone that's arguing with you about them to begin with. But since you want to engage in it, I'm going to oblige.
I didn't respond at all to the estate tax idea. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to post opinions on the internet unless I was asked.


Sure it is...the caveat being if you can afford it. Kinda like that retainer thing you mentioned...affordability is the main barrier to entry.


Access and availability are very different from existence.


Which is again an issue in access and availability. Not everyone that needs a bi-pass GETS ONE.


Actually, it isn't. There are actually large variances when you break it down by race and class.
Interesting issue that I haven't researched. This with all your other points though, how is it improved through Obama care? The rich will continue to get great healthcare because they can always pay for the exception. Heck they can probably buy a hospital if they so choose. The government is not looking to improve access or care with this plan. It's a payment plan pure and simple. It's going to cause hospitals to become much more efficient to deliver the same level of care today or go out of business. Right or wrong, middle class benefits have largely been a driving force of the employment industry. Take away that and you are left with rich individuals having great access to healthcare and everybody else fighting for the scraps, whereas before being middle class gave you some benefits in getting healthcare.

What the heck are you talking about here?
Sorry, I am spending way more time on this thread than I wanted to and may not have made myself clear. One problem with the current system is that primary care doctors pick and choose who they see, leaving lower paying individuals with poor insurance with the only option to go to the emergency room. ERs are an extremely costly way to serve as a place of primary care. Hospitals are paying for this now, and we are going to add payment reductions to the pile.

[Msut77]

Rationing is a very slippery slope.

Not really, anything that isn't "every person gets all the healthcare they could possibly want/need for free" is rationing by money or resources. So I avoid the loaded term.

Can you provide a study listing that 10,000s of individuals die from lack of access to care a year.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=US+people+die+due+to+lack+of+healthcare

I'm just surprised because it's a law that ERs have to serve anyone that show up.

Using ERs as the first/last resort is incredibly dumb.

FYI they have to stabilize you, they can then throw you to the wolves so to speak.

Taiwan is 1/2 the size of Ohio and France is 2 times the size of Colorado.

We are also technically richer than either of those two countries and are also de facto willing to pay more already they pay per capita.

Sorry, I am spending way more time on this thread than I wanted to and may not have made myself clear. One problem with the current system is that primary care doctors pick and choose who they see, leaving lower paying individuals with poor insurance with the only option to go to the emergency room. ERs are an extremely costly way to serve as a place of primary care. Hospitals are paying for this now, and we are going to add payment reductions to the pile.

Should I take this to mean you are bowing out of this thread? Did you hit all the marks for talking point bingo?

[smallsharkbigbite]

Not really, anything that isn't "every person gets all the healthcare they could possibly want/need for free" is rationing by money or resources. So I avoid the loaded term.



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=US+people+die+due+to+lack+of+healthcare



Using ERs as the first/last resort is incredibly dumb.

FYI they have to stabilize you, they can then throw you to the wolves so to speak.



We are also technically richer than either those to countries and are also de facto willing to pay more already they pay per capita.

You still have to draw a line in the sand at some point with the rationing. Do doctors get to decide? Is there a second opinion? Do you use $20,000 like the ole Brits? I don't like the idea of rationing. I concur it may be happening at some level now, but I'd rather see it happen less if anything. Not a greater level.

I didn't say using ERs as primary care was a good idea, but it happens quite a bit. I understand the throw them to the wolves thing. But I feel this health care law makes it worse, not better. Just because you have a poor level of insurance (health care exchange somewhere between Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement) does not mean you'll find access at primary care facilities or treatment facilities that are not required to take everyone that shows up at the door. And paying hospitals less will not create bigger access at the hospital level. You are not going to see new hospitals sprout up, or improved care at inter-city hospitals (which I believe the above post was leaning with the racial/ethnic care divide). In fact you may see worse care at those facilities if they are hammered with poor paying insurers. Because a hospital either has to make a profit or shut its doors.

Well, France is still AAA rated :). Okay, seriously though, our life expectancy is right around France and Taiwan and I thought I couldn't use more money? Taiwan built their health care system from the ground up in the last ten years, so not surprising they love their healthcare. I suppose we could do that in the US but we certainly would have to spend several times what we have now at least at first. France loves socialist policies and everything that's the opposite of US. Not saying US can't improve, but congress proves we can't see anything eye to eye and it's hard to compare cultural differences between the different countries. If you look at France rationing has been built with them for several years and they view it as a good alternative to paying more. In the US, many people feel they have a right to free care and they expect professionals to be able to solve everything with minimally invasive procedures. Like I said, we can do better, but given the state of our society, unlimited free care in the top ranked hospital in the world is the only thing that will give us a good score. I'm pretty sure your not recommending that.

Oh, and I probably should feel offended on the let me google it for you, but I actually thought that was kind of cool. I still don't know how Obama care is going to help that much though because of the issues discussed above.

[dohdough]

Thanks for formatting!:roll:

Do a google search. It's easy to see what they make.
You're the one that made the assertion that one group doesn't make that much compared to another, yet made no mention of scale or hard number. I know exactly what the median is, but you're implying that somehow, doctors are hard up for cash.

I didn't respond at all to the estate tax idea. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to post opinions on the internet unless I was asked.
No, you dropped a talking point bomb in response to a quote that has nothing to do with those talking points.

Interesting issue that I haven't researched. This with all your other points though, how is it improved through Obama care? The rich will continue to get great healthcare because they can always pay for the exception. Heck they can probably buy a hospital if they so choose. The government is not looking to improve access or care with this plan. It's a payment plan pure and simple. It's going to cause hospitals to become much more efficient to deliver the same level of care today or go out of business. Right or wrong, middle class benefits have largely been a driving force of the employment industry. Take away that and you are left with rich individuals having great access to healthcare and everybody else fighting for the scraps, whereas before being middle class gave you some benefits in getting healthcare.
Interesting issue that you haven't researched you say? Why am I not surprised!

So what are YOU suggesting beyond the status quo? You've jumped from "we have the best healthcare in the world" to "only the rich can afford it" and back to "NObama-Care!" only after I bring up access?

Sorry, I am spending way more time on this thread than I wanted to and may not have made myself clear. One problem with the current system is that primary care doctors pick and choose who they see, leaving lower paying individuals with poor insurance with the only option to go to the emergency room. ERs are an extremely costly way to serve as a place of primary care. Hospitals are paying for this now, and we are going to add payment reductions to the pile.
Or maybe we could have a universal healthcare system like the progressives wanted instead of this milquetoast reform!

edit:
You are not going to see new hospitals sprout up, or improved care at inter-city hospitals (which I believe the above post was leaning with the racial/ethnic care divide).
This is not even close to what I was getting at. You said that life expectancy for people in the country is 78 years old; this is true if you're a white female, which is actually 80. White males are at 76, which is the roughly same as black females, and black males are at 70, whose numbers don't account for class. Vomiting out 78 being the average life expectancy is meaningless when you jump from having the best healthcare in the world to access.

Well, France is still AAA rated...France loves socialist policies and everything that's the opposite of US
How do you make sense out of these two seemingly opposing points in your crazy little head?

[Msut77]

Do you use $20,000 like the ole Brits?

You ask me which system I would like to see the US come close to and yet you continue to bring up the UK's system, why?

By the by, if I am understanding you correctly you mean 20,000 quid (brits don't use dollars) per QALY.

It is kind of a big difference.

I concur it may be happening at some level now, but I'd rather see it happen less if anything.

May? In a system where millions were uninsured and tens of thousands die due to lack of healthcare it "may" be happening?

Rationing by money is still rationing. As far as I know no one has invented a machine for infinite resources, so like I said I avoided the loaded term.

But I feel this health care law makes it worse, not better.

I don't care about your gut feelings.

Oh, and I probably should feel offended on the let me google it for you, but I actually thought that was kind of cool.

We should all be offended.

I still don't know how Obama care is going to help that much though because of the issues discussed above.

I suspected you weren't arguing from good faith.

Way to put the nails in your own coffin.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Thanks for formatting!:roll:

You're the one that made the assertion that one group doesn't make that much compared to another, yet made no mention of scale or hard number. I know exactly what the median is, but you're implying that somehow, doctors are hard up for cash.
I thought it was fine to read, but I'll format if it will make you think I'm edumacated.

I didn't imply at all doctors are hard up for cash. I stated reasons why they are well paid in our society and said they are one reason for the high cost of our healthcare. This seems like a non issue to me. Or do you want to talk about it further?


No, you dropped a talking point bomb in response to a quote that has nothing to do with those talking points.

I didn't think it was a bomb. Your the only one who responded and I'm not even sure what question you are asking about it. So I'm not sure how you want me to respond.


Interesting issue that you haven't researched you say? Why am I not surprised!

Yes, admitting I don't know something clearly means I'm ignorant and nothing I say matters. Please block me now. It would be much better had I pretended to be an expert on the matter. Like I said healthcare is exceeding complicated. If you know everything please run for congress, draw up a plan, and save our country already.


So what are YOU suggesting beyond the status quo? You've jumped from "we have the best healthcare in the world" to "only the rich can afford it" and back to "NObama-Care!" only after I bring up access?

Not quite. As discussed above, all healthcare has some level of rationing. I wish it to get less, not more. I feel Obama-care will create more rationing and have listed several reasons. I still feel if you need a major surgery this is the best place to get it. Whether or not your access would be denied here and not if you lived in say France I don't know. I know they ration too.


[I][B]
Or maybe we could have a universal healthcare system like the progressives wanted instead of this milquetoast reform!

My concerns with universal healthcare are the same as have typically been brought up. Most of Europe is being hammered with high healthcare and high debt and they are looking to cut costs too. Are their costs lower, sure. But we have alot of unique issues that I've listed that would be difficult to get our $ per capita down to those levels even with universal health care. With universal healthcare I think you'd still see the same issues we have now. If universal healthcare was signed into law today, do you think they would push money into inter-city facilities so they would receive the same level of care as other facilities? Do you think physicians could see everybody that would want care because they now are universally insured? With the stance the government has taken, they don't want to pay for healthcare so I can't see how it would get better.

[Msut77]

I stated reasons why they are well paid in our society and said they are one reason for the high cost of our healthcare.

You are curiously silent on the role of for profit insurance companies in our high cost system.

Yes, admitting I don't know something clearly means I'm ignorant and nothing I say matters.

As a citizen you are expected to have a basic awareness of the state of the country you live in, not knowing that tens of thousands of people die in our system due to lack of care after the literal years of debate makes one wonder if you have that awareness.

I feel Obama-care will create more rationing and have listed several reasons.

FYI using the term obamacare makes you seem silly.

I still feel if you need a major surgery this is the best place to get it.

There is that word "feel" again, also America is a pretty good place to get surgery if you are the grand poobah of bumfuckistan and you have money to burn.

Most of Europe is being hammered with high healthcare and high debt and they are looking to cut costs too.

We basically spend several times what they do. To deny people care.

Are their costs lower, sure

It is very magnanimous of you to accept objective reality.

[smallsharkbigbite]

You ask me which system I would like to see the US come close to and yet you continue to bring up the UK's system, why?

By the by, if I am understanding you correctly you mean 20,000 quid (brits don't use dollars) per QALY.

It is kind of a big difference.



May? In a system where millions were uninsured and tens of thousands die due to lack of healthcare it "may" be happening?

Rationing by money is still rationing. As far as I know no one has invented a machine for infinite resources, so like I said I avoided the loaded term.



I don't care about your gut feelings.



We should all be offended.



I suspected you weren't arguing from good faith.

Way to put the nails in your own coffin.

It's 10,000 pounds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm Don't know current exchange rates, but I believe that is around $20,000. So probably somewhat of difference on exchange but I'm sure you'll google it for me, because since I don't believe that universal health will lead to better outcomes and you do, your gut is a little better than mine.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2010/03/16/did-the-national-health-service-let-20000-brits-die/

I'm glad your offended. I've been trying to argue nicely but you like to take little swipes at me and not really portray a whole message but pick apart ideas within mine. But why should I suspect different. Congress proved the best way to argue is to tear apart everything that the person who doesn't agree with you believes in, in the hope that people will just think they are a moron a discard you. The link above proves that as many people die in Britain from rationing in the US. Last I checked they had about a sixth of our population and were much closer in proximity which would allow them to provide cheaper access better. How is universal healthcare better again?

The name of the thread is obama care. I thought it was okay to call it that since it's universally called that by both critics supporters (maybe not obama, but I've heard people at my work refer to it as that) and is certainly quicker to type than affordable care act of 2011. Either way it's obvious I'm not a fan of obama care. If me saying that means I have nothing of value to add then carry on and don't respond.

[smallsharkbigbite]

You are curiously silent on the role of for profit insurance companies in our high cost system.



As a citizen you are expected to have a basic awareness of the state of the country you live in, not knowing that tens of thousands of people die in our system due to lack of care after the literal years of debate makes one wonder if you have that awareness.



FYI using the term obamacare makes you seem silly.



There is that word "feel" again, also America is a pretty good place to get surgery if you are the grand poobah of bumfuckistan and you have money to burn.



We basically spend several times what they do. To deny people care.



It is very magnanimous of you to accept objective reality.

For-profit insurance is an issue. I think think they should be regulated. The details I'm not so sure. I could pass a bill in a couple of days and have other people figure it out.

I know lots of people die each year. What's difficult is to determine if they die from. If I have a stomach ache today and don't want to go to the doctor because I don't want to pay a $25 co-pay, then die tomorrow did I die from a lack of access? What about when I come to the hospital too late with a condition that is now not treatable but may have been? Are they required to offer me no-co-pay health care? Truly poor people get access to Medicaid. We can debate how good their access is but there is some. Next, you have alot of people that choose not to be insured. Are these people denied access when they develop cancer and become uninsurable? Are the illegal immigrants (which aren't covered by the bill) denied access to healthcare? I think it's a hard number to quantify, and if you want to lump them all into no access then by all means do so. I think the 40,000 is hard to prove, and given the rural areas that may truly lack health care 40,000 out of 300,000,000 is pretty remarkable and better than what you'll see at a lot of socialized nations.

Well would you rather get cancer treatment here or in Britain? Because I'm pretty sure your not getting it in Britain based on the article above.

And to me initially the numbers seem to show we spend more per capita to deny less people care. But our #'s aren't quite as good because we have crankier people that don't take care of themselves. I also believe that our patient perception of care scores have been very negatively affected because there has been about a decade of 10% price increases. Since we don't socialize like France, the patient pays a good portion of this. In France, the patient never knows that the cost of their care has increased substantially.

And just to note, I'm not your typical republican talking point. Although that is why your trying to focus on. A key point is that rich people get better care. That is absolutely true. I'm for raising taxes on the rich/middle class to better fund Medicare and Medicaid so the elderly and indigent have better access and expanding Medicaid as necessary to make sure that people that can't afford it can get access. I'm not against the individual mandate. It's one of the few ways that we can decrease costs of uninsured. Those things can be done without universal healthcare. Then tackle true cost overruns in the system, for-profit insurance, high drug costs, high supply costs, high equipment costs, high physician compensation. This could do it without crippling our existing network which lower payments will. Universal health care will lead to cost reductions across the board since our government is so bent on not taxing people (expecially the rich). There may be equal care (I still doubt that because I don't see the government updating infrastructure in low income areas), but there will be less care.

[dohdough]

I thought it was fine to read, but I'll format if it will make you think I'm edumacated.
It's because it's a simple courtesy for someone that's going to respond to your posts.

I didn't imply at all doctors are hard up for cash. I stated reasons why they are well paid in our society and said they are one reason for the high cost of our healthcare. This seems like a non issue to me. Or do you want to talk about it further?
It's actually pretty central to your core argument that costs are too high for the patients and Medicaid/-care reimbursements are too low. While seemingly circular, you fail to address the elephant in the room: private insurers...which you don't address at.all.


I didn't think it was a bomb. Your the only one who responded and I'm not even sure what question you are asking about it. So I'm not sure how you want me to respond.
I exected the opposite of "we have the best healthcare in the whole wide world!" etc.

Yes, admitting I don't know something clearly means I'm ignorant and nothing I say matters. Please block me now. It would be much better had I pretended to be an expert on the matter. Like I said healthcare is exceeding complicated. If you know everything please run for congress, draw up a plan, and save our country already.
Yes, it's complicated. That's why you shouldn't be throwing out vagueries like you have been.

Using the "if you're so smart, you do it!" defense holds no water with me since you've probably read at least all of the posts within the last month and can clearly see that I'm for UHS and heavy government subsidies to increase access. Did you really expect no one to check the dates of those posts you responded to today?


Not quite. As discussed above, all healthcare has some level of rationing. I wish it to get less, not more. I feel Obama-care will create more rationing and have listed several reasons. I still feel if you need a major surgery this is the best place to get it. Whether or not your access would be denied here and not if you lived in say France I don't know. I know they ration too.
So private insurance companies have nothing to do with it? And does it matter that the politicians that were screaming about death panels are the ones instituting them when there isn't a need to?


My concerns with universal healthcare are the same as have typically been brought up. Most of Europe is being hammered with high healthcare and high debt and they are looking to cut costs too. Are their costs lower, sure. But we have alot of unique issues that I've listed that would be difficult to get our $ per capita down to those levels even with universal health care. With universal healthcare I think you'd still see the same issues we have now. If universal healthcare was signed into law today, do you think they would push money into inter-city facilities so they would receive the same level of care as other facilities? Do you think physicians could see everybody that would want care because they now are universally insured? With the stance the government has taken, they don't want to pay for healthcare so I can't see how it would get better.
Stagnant wages, wealth disparity, and austerity aren't good for anybody. Using "government" as a boogieman that's holding us back is disengenuous. I'd go on about the current state of politics, but what I really want to know is if you think Obama is the most socialist president we've ever had.

[Msut77]

It's 10,000 pounds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm Don't know current exchange rates, but I believe that is around $20,000. So probably somewhat of difference on exchange but I'm sure you'll google it for me, because since I don't believe that universal health will lead to better outcomes and you do, your gut is a little better than mine.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2010/03/16/did-the-national-health-service-let-20000-brits-die/

I'm glad your offended. I've been trying to argue nicely but you like to take little swipes at me and not really portray a whole message but pick apart ideas within mine. But why should I suspect different. Congress proved the best way to argue is to tear apart everything that the person who doesn't agree with you believes in, in the hope that people will just think they are a moron a discard you. The link above proves that as many people die in Britain from rationing in the US. Last I checked they had about a sixth of our population and were much closer in proximity which would allow them to provide cheaper access better. How is universal healthcare better again?

The name of the thread is obama care. I thought it was okay to call it that since it's universally called that by both critics supporters (maybe not obama, but I've heard people at my work refer to it as that) and is certainly quicker to type than affordable care act of 2011. Either way it's obvious I'm not a fan of obama care. If me saying that means I have nothing of value to add then carry on and don't respond.

Your first link does not say what you think it says. Nothing else worth responding to in the above.

Also the focus on the UK doesn't make you look very honest.

[dohdough]

It's 10,000 pounds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm Don't know current exchange rates, but I believe that is around $20,000. So probably somewhat of difference on exchange but I'm sure you'll google it for me, because since I don't believe that universal health will lead to better outcomes and you do, your gut is a little better than mine.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2010/03/16/did-the-national-health-service-let-20000-brits-die/

I'm glad your offended. I've been trying to argue nicely but you like to take little swipes at me and not really portray a whole message but pick apart ideas within mine. But why should I suspect different. Congress proved the best way to argue is to tear apart everything that the person who doesn't agree with you believes in, in the hope that people will just think they are a moron a discard you. The link above proves that as many people die in Britain from rationing in the US. Last I checked they had about a sixth of our population and were much closer in proximity which would allow them to provide cheaper access better. How is universal healthcare better again?

The name of the thread is obama care. I thought it was okay to call it that since it's universally called that by both critics supporters (maybe not obama, but I've heard people at my work refer to it as that) and is certainly quicker to type than affordable care act of 2011. Either way it's obvious I'm not a fan of obama care. If me saying that means I have nothing of value to add then carry on and don't respond.
By the way, Stephen Hawking would like to have a word with you about NHS and PPACA is quicker than typing OBAMASCARE!

[Msut77]

By the way, Stephen Hawking would like to have a word with you about NHS and PPACA is quicker than typing OBAMASCARE!

Dd you have to admit he wins every argument. After all we are big and have lots of people and hence we cannot have nice things like air travel or trains.

[mykevermin]

Come on, now, people. If you want to flame Bob, or Knoell, fine. They contribute nothing.

This cat is bringing a hell of a lot more to the table than anyone against PPACA is a long time.

You don't have to agree, but you ought to show some respect. Even if he uses terms like "Obamacare."

I wish I had the time to really sit and look over his/her posts from the last few days. Alas, the semester starts tomorrow. Maybe by Friday.

[dohdough]

Come on, now, people. If you want to flame Bob, or Knoell, fine. They contribute nothing.

This cat is bringing a hell of a lot more to the table than anyone against PPACA is a long time.

You don't have to agree, but you ought to show some respect. Even if he uses terms like "Obamacare."

I wish I had the time to really sit and look over his/her posts from the last few days. Alas, the semester starts tomorrow. Maybe by Friday.
Meh, I don't see how "best healthcare in da whole wide world!" and "long waiting times/rationing care!" bring anything new to the table. This lovely poster responded to month old posts while regurgitating stuff this thread has already seen without bothering to do even a little cursory research their platitudes. This poster is literally one step away from shouting DEATH PANELS!111!1

There are 12 posts made yesterday by this person, if I were you, I wouldn't waste my time reviewing it. You'd be more productive watching ketchup pour out of a Heinz bottle...if you can find a glass one these days...heh.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Meh, I don't see how "best healthcare in da whole wide world!" and "long waiting times/rationing care!" bring anything new to the table. This lovely poster responded to month old posts while regurgitating stuff this thread has already seen without bothering to do even a little cursory research their platitudes. This poster is literally one step away from shouting DEATH PANELS!111!1

There are 12 posts made yesterday by this person, if I were you, I wouldn't waste my time reviewing it. You'd be more productive watching ketchup pour out of a Heinz bottle...if you can find a glass one these days...heh.

The funny thing is the only thing I responded to you on was mainly agreeing with you that I don't think physicians are greedy, but then adding if you are going to cut health care costs they have to have a reduction in pay since they make more on average than in foreign countries. Then you've spent the rest of the time assaulting me with a personal vendetta and calling me names and I still don't know why. Based on what your saying I probably agree with 80% of what you think on health care, but you like to keep regurgitating democratic talking points on me because you've labeled me the enemy.

To your point, death panels would never happen. All they have to do is keep decreasing reimbursement on Medicare/Medicaid and eventually essential services won't be offered.

And I've asked many times, I'm in the majority of people that feel ppaca is not a good direction for this country and I'm opposed to a govenment take over of the healthcare industry because I feel they are largely inefficient and they will keep cutting costs due to budget issues which will lead to less and less coverage. All I keep hearing is how great the Taiwanese and French programs are, but they are well advantaged because of their smaller size and greater population density. As well as health care costs are skyrocketing in those nations. So please enlighten me. I've admitted I've been wrong before in this thread so if you have something substantial I'll consider it. It's very easy to toss stones at a few of my ideas and label me an idiot without putting up anything of your own.

[UncleBob]

Come on, now, people. If you want to flame Bob, or Knoell, fine. They contribute nothing.

What's sad is that this is about how far Myke can get when it comes to "mature discussion". It's either picking fights and name calling, or claiming people said something they didn't, then attacking them based off what they didn't say.

Good times.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Dd you have to admit he wins every argument. After all we are big and have lots of people and hence we cannot have nice things like air travel or trains.

Lol, I never said that. Socialized healthcare works best when you can consolidate (saving costs) and still allowing appropriate access. If you think we can cookie cutter France and Taiwan and have the same cost structure while replacing the broken one in place, let me know how. This is a discussion, I try to respond to your criticisms to my plans, I'm not trying to win. Largely your responses are OBAMACARE lol, troll. Well that's fine if you don't wish to bring anything but ripping on me to the conversation. You'd make a great congressmen because they are great at that.

[dohdough]

The funny thing is the only thing I responded to you on was mainly agreeing with you that I don't think physicians are greedy, but then adding if you are going to cut health care costs they have to have a reduction in pay since they make more on average than in foreign countries. Then you've spent the rest of the time assaulting me with a personal vendetta and calling me names and I still don't know why. Based on what your saying I probably agree with 80% of what you think on health care, but you like to keep regurgitating democratic talking points on me because you've labeled me the enemy.
Which talking points. Be specific since there are only a few posts to parse through.

To your point, death panels would never happen. All they have to do is keep decreasing reimbursement on Medicare/Medicaid and eventually essential services won't be offered.
Actually, they do exist. Insurance companies have been denying care for decades before it was even proposed by Republicans.

And I've asked many times, I'm in the majority of people that feel ppaca is not a good direction for this country and I'm opposed to a govenment take over of the healthcare industry because I feel they are largely inefficient and they will keep cutting costs due to budget issues which will lead to less and less coverage.
The healthcare industry doesn't operate in a bubble and austerity is obviously not the answer because it makes affordability even tougher, which leads not only to less access, but starts increasing the barrier to entry in proportion to cuts. And just because a lot of people are against PPACA doesn't mean they're in it for the same reason as you.

All I keep hearing is how great the Taiwanese and French programs are, but they are well advantaged because of their smaller size and greater population density. As well as health care costs are skyrocketing in those nations. So please enlighten me. I've admitted I've been wrong before in this thread so if you have something substantial I'll consider it. It's very easy to toss stones at a few of my ideas and label me an idiot without putting up anything of your own.
Nice of you to respond to this particular quote, but what about the 2 posts I made prior to it? Especially since they address those concerns you bring up that you nicely ignored while confusing me for someone else. Thanks guy.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Your first link does not say what you think it says. Nothing else worth responding to in the above.

Also the focus on the UK doesn't make you look very honest.

Okay, I'll admit I pick on the UK because they are very honest about denying care and I don't think they have that great of a difference between them and France. Still waiting for you to respond with more of your ideas.

Tell me what the link says then:

"The full effectiveness of the drug has yet to be established, and because it is very costly - approximately £10,000 per patient per year - some health authorities are reluctant to allow doctors to prescribe it.
Another example is a drug used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, Taxol, which has been licensed for use in the UK since mid-1998.


It costs £1,500 per injection and the average course requires six of these.
There are two studies that show the drug extends a patient's life by a year, but this is not enough evidence to justify prescribing it for everyone with ovarian cancer."


It looks like to me that they don't want to spend more than 10,000 pounds a year and are unlikely to even invest 9,000 pounds on a person in their last year of life. What's wrong?



France is a tougher shell to crack, because their system works well for them. But it's not really that much different than ours as their costs are spiraling out of control and they are looking to our healthcare (co-pays, fee-for-service), etc.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html


Differences:


1. France makes people pay 13.55% on income and the US imposes 2.9% (even though that's for Medicare and won't be paid until later in life.



If we are allowed to add tax to the system, I would think that extra 10% would improve access/care much. As it stands today, tax increases of that magnitude are unlikely so a change to the France style would drive up costs further as the US would attempt to extend care without increased revenue.



2. France has a universal plus system. This would basically mean taking something like the Medicare system and giving it to everyone then allowing them to obtain additional insurance beyond that. See #1, without additional tax revenue, this is a disaster waiting to happen. This part though wouldn't be that bad to add to our system if people were willing to pay more taxes for better care.


3. France centralizes everything by limiting hospitals and physicians. This is a key component to them keeping costs down. The US is over 14 times the size of France, and only has approximately 5 times the amount of people. I don't know how you do this in the US without limiting access substantially from where it is now.

[Msut77]

Okay, I'll admit I pick on the UK because they are very honest about denying care

Interesting turn of phrase.

I don't think they have that great of a difference between them and France.

You might think that, but then you don't know basically anything about either system.

Still waiting for you to respond with more of your ideas.

Singapore's or the German system.

Tell me what the link says then:

"The full effectiveness of thedrug has yet to be established."

"There are two studies that show the drug extends a patient's life by a year, but this is not enough evidence to justify prescribing it for everyone with ovarian cancer."

Totally different than what you claimed multiple times.

But it's not really that much different than ours

No.

If we are allowed to add tax to the system

Why would a tax need to be added if we already spend so much more than we do?

France centralizes everything by limiting hospitals and physicians

France like Taiwan uses a smartcard, like single payer systems in general it really increases efficiency. These countries that spend less than us in general spend much higher proportions on actual care.

Lol, I never said that.

It is exactly what you are saying.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Actually, they do exist. Insurance companies have been denying care for decades before it was even proposed by Republicans.

Okay, then I guess the government has it's own share of death panels.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/06/30/medicare-more-likely-to-deny-claims-than-commerical-health-insurers/


The healthcare industry doesn't operate in a bubble and austerity is obviously not the answer because it makes affordability even tougher, which leads not only to less access, but starts increasing the barrier to entry in proportion to cuts. And just because a lot of people are against PPACA doesn't mean they're in it for the same reason as you.

Economy, healthcare, jobs, etc. Our country is clearly in decline. There is still a chance to recover but our decision makers need to step up their game and stop voting for themselves time and time again. At least with our government, government interaction has been a bad thing and that is included with their current role in healthcare. Change for change sake isn't good. PPACA was rammed through in a short period of time without thinking through many things. You think I'm out of touch? Congressmen make several times what I make which gives them access to things I could only dream of, and they won't ever have to deal with the healthcare bill because they so kindly let themselves out of it with nice government benefits. So I believe there are 3 issues.
A. I don't trust congress to develop a good plan. Not at least without working hand in hand with the professionals of healthcare and by showing good faith negotiations with each other rather than hammering talking points.
B. It takes more time to overhaul the health system right. Lock them in a room for a year and let them hammer out the details.
C. If our nation continues down the path of reckless spending they will be cutting a lot more than just healthcare and our this recession or whatever will look like the golden ages. When your are adding 1.5T a year in deficit without expanded care, they don't have the resources you envision.


Nice of you to respond to this particular quote, but what about the 2 posts I made prior to it? Especially since they address those concerns you bring up that you nicely ignored while confusing me for someone else. Thanks guy.

Man I can't win with you. Msut77 I believe originally posted that in #4384 (maybe you did several pages back). And I didn't attribute the quote to anyone so I don't know why you think I'm confusing you and ignoring what you say.

[Msut77]

Okay, then I guess the government has it's own share of death panels.

Debunked months ago, a private insurer denying a claim can be a months long battle royale. For the most part for Medicare it means refilling out the form with correct info.

2nd comment:
If you look at the AMA report cards, you’ll see that most claims denied by Medicare were due to billing errors (inadequate data on billing forms, wrong carrier, not enrolled in program, etc.).

PPACA was rammed through in a short period of time without thinking through many things.

No.

You think I'm out of touch?

Yes.

[smallsharkbigbite]

You might think that, but then you don't know basically anything about either system.

Singapore's or the German system.

Since I know nothing about the US or France system. Please just explain those.


"The full effectiveness of thedrug has yet to be established."

"There are two studies that show the drug extends a patient's life by a year, but this is not enough evidence to justify prescribing it for everyone with ovarian cancer."

Totally different than what you claimed multiple times.

Don't know how that's different. They limit care by not allowing doctors to proscribe drugs they feel necessary. It it's ordered it's shown that it is at least somewhat effective. We can wait years and many trials to know if it is effective. Could I have found a better example, maybe. But you'd have dismissed it just as fast with a snide comment.


Why would a tax need to be added if we already spend so much more than we do?

This would put essentially everyone on a government healthcare. We may pay a lot, but it's due to other things discussed multiple times that you gloss over. More people on government healthcare = government paying for more access. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I fail to see how costs will magically go down because everyone is covered and the government would now be paying for items that private insurers did before. Please enlighten.

France like Taiwan uses a smartcard, like single payer systems in general it really increases efficiency. These countries that spend less than us in general spend much higher proportions on actual care.

Aren't we already essentially doing that with electronic medical records, which is supposed to allow more detailed patient information across providers?

Quicker reimbursement for hospitals, okay, but Medicare generally pays pretty fast.

This may be a good idea, but how much money do you exactly think this is going to save? Germany tried to introduce a new card but shelved it after it cost $2B.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Debunked months ago, a private insurer denying a claim can be a months long battle royale. For the most part for Medicare it means refilling out the form with correct info.

2nd comment:
If you look at the AMA report cards, you’ll see that most claims denied by Medicare were due to billing errors (inadequate data on billing forms, wrong carrier, not enrolled in program, etc.).



No.



Yes.

Second most common reason for denials is not a medical necessity. And Medicare pays for more fraudulent claims than private insurers. So universal healthcare will solve our overpayments how? Also, since we are talking government. Look how long it takes to get approved for Medicaid and how many people get denied from getting any access. And even if you think Medicare reimbursement is great, Medicaid is much less than that. Not much access for probably the second most in need part of the population after Medicare patients.

Since you believe PPACA was a good bill enlighten me there too.

And do you really have to respond to every one of my posts by with a derogatory comment? Save everyone's time and pass next time. If I'm such an idiot everyone will already pick that up without your help. Just let your arguments lead your way.

[dohdough]

Okay, then I guess the government has it's own share of death panels.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/06/30/medicare-more-likely-to-deny-claims-than-commerical-health-insurers/
Denied claims do not equal death panels. Neither do billing errors. And next time, please link the source article and not an opinon on the source article.

Economy, healthcare, jobs, etc. Our country is clearly in decline. There is still a chance to recover but our decision makers need to step up their game and stop voting for themselves time and time again.
Who are those decision makers and how do they make those decisions?

At least with our government, government interaction has been a bad thing and that is included with their current role in healthcare. Change for change sake isn't good. PPACA was rammed through in a short period of time without thinking through many things.
Sounds like you have a bout of amnesia. Do you recall all the filibusters, death panel talk, and accusations of socialism and communism? This went on for fucking months. Even a public insurance exchange was decried as being "too crazy," muchless talk about UHS.

You think I'm out of touch?
Your sense of scale is completely out of whack.

Congressmen make several times what I make which gives them access to things I could only dream of, and they won't ever have to deal with the healthcare bill because they so kindly let themselves out of it with nice government benefits.
Ummm...that's because their insurance coverage is far above the minimum standards set forth in PPACA. Guess what, so is mine, but I think everyone should have access to a high level of care without needing to be bankrupted by it.

So I believe there are 3 issues.
A. I don't trust congress to develop a good plan. Not at least without working hand in hand with the professionals of healthcare and by showing good faith negotiations with each other rather than hammering talking points.
B. It takes more time to overhaul the health system right. Lock them in a room for a year and let them hammer out the details.
C. If our nation continues down the path of reckless spending they will be cutting a lot more than just healthcare and our this recession or whatever will look like the golden ages. When your are adding 1.5T a year in deficit without expanded care, they don't have the resources you envision.
Hey, I have an idea. Let's raise marginal tax rates and create more income brackets while also increasing capital gains and restoring estate taxes.

And you still talk about healthcare being self-contained without addressing other systematic problems that contribute to it. If you're so concerned with spending, where would YOU be looking to make cuts?

Man I can't win with you. Msut77 I believe originally posted that in #4384 (maybe you did several pages back). And I didn't attribute the quote to anyone so I don't know why you think I'm confusing you and ignoring what you say.
Because you ARE. You completely ignored Stephen Hawking, my solutions, austerity, failed to identify my "democratic talking points," Obame being the most socialist president, France having AAA credit while doing the opposite of the US, etc. I just friggin outlined most of it for you right there.

And if Msut77 was the one talking about France and Taiwan, then address those points with him because he made the argument, not me. It was only in the last couple friggin pages. At put in some effort.

[Msut77]

Since I know nothing about the US or France system. Please just explain those.

I can recommend several books.

Don't know how that's different.

You might not have noticed, but I underlined/bolded the essential parts.

Your original claim was that the UK just flat out denied any care over a certain amount.

This would put essentially everyone on a government healthcare.

And?

We may pay a lot, but it's due to other things discussed multiple times that you gloss over.

The biggest problem is our fragmented system and for profit-private insurance companies milking it for all it is worth.

More people on government healthcare = government paying for more access.

In a sense, but the key is they are not paying more.

Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I fail to see how costs will magically go down because everyone is covered and the government would now be paying for items that private insurers did before. Please enlighten.

I have attempted to enlighten you, you are actively trying to stay endarkened.

Aren't we already essentially doing that with electronic medical records

Not if there are dozens of systems not connected with each other.

Since you believe PPACA was a good bill enlighten me there too.

It will help tens of millions of American gain access to healthcare and ends the practice of recission (look it up).

[smallsharkbigbite]

Denied claims do not equal death panels. Neither do billing errors. And next time, please link the source article and not an opinon on the source article.

How about here:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

45,000 died because Medicaid programs (government programs designed for low income individuals) failed to get them care. And I listed above the Medicares second biggest denial is for lack of medical necessity. But government is good, so we will ignore the flaws in that system.


Who are those decision makers and how do they make those decisions?
Congress and they suck in general. That's about all I'm going to go into about that. Healthcare is big enough without entering in all the social/economic problems of the US.


Sounds like you have a bout of amnesia. Do you recall all the filibusters, death panel talk, and accusations of socialism and communism? This went on for fucking months. Even a public insurance exchange was decried as being "too crazy," muchless talk about UHS.

Where was the collaboration with the experts and providers? Where was the analysis of the France/Germany/Taiwan systems to see what we could learn and how to make it fit within our broken system? Just because the republicans acted like children for many months doesn't mean that the bill was being worked on or anything meaningful was added in that period.

Ummm...that's because their insurance coverage is far above the minimum standards set forth in PPACA. Guess what, so is mine, but I think everyone should have access to a high level of care without needing to be bankrupted by it.
Well then why aren't they passing around there insurance or your insurance? Why do we need this mess of a bill? I know their benefits are greater, and mine are currently too. My point is, how much faith do you have in a congress that tells you, this is good for you, not so much for me?


Hey, I have an idea. Let's raise marginal tax rates and create more income brackets while also increasing capital gains and restoring estate taxes.
You've brought this up before and I've agreed with you every time. I'm just more of a realist. I think the possibility of raising taxes significantly (and not using that on debt) is exceedingly low especially with the current republican tag line. As such, I'm limiting myself to having no extra money on the expectation that none will be provided.

And you still talk about healthcare being self-contained without addressing other systematic problems that contribute to it. If you're so concerned with spending, where would YOU be looking to make cuts?
Posted before:
Drug profits
Insurance profits
Supply manufacturer profits
implant maker profits
and Physician comp


Because you ARE. You completely ignored Stephen Hawking, my solutions, austerity, failed to identify my "democratic talking points," Obame being the most socialist president, France having AAA credit while doing the opposite of the US, etc. I just friggin outlined most of it for you right there.
I didn't ignore you at all. I agreed that raising taxes/expanding access should be the goal many times. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect congress to agree to raise taxes or society to be able to pay increased taxes with high unemployment. So I move onto the next best step. But France being AAA is a joke. They have more debt per capita than us. Not sure what you mean by Stephen Hawking. He's a person I know that much. But if he has thoughts please outline.

And if Msut77 was the one talking about France and Taiwan, then address those points with him because he made the argument, not me. It was only in the last couple friggin pages. At put in some effort.

Okay, you seem to take this very personally so I'm sorry. I generally respond, then add a few spaces to signify a break, then enter a new topic. I thought this was common and didn't mean you have to respond to everything I say or I win as Msut77 puts it. I thought that was common knowledge, but going forward I won't put anything new in my comments for you.

[Msut77]

45,000 died because Medicaid programs (government programs designed for low income individuals) failed to get them care.

If those people were allowed access to that system they would have gotten care, that isn't a failure of that program.

You are being ridiculous.

[smallsharkbigbite]

The biggest problem is our fragmented system and for profit-private insurance companies milking it for all it is worth.

In a sense, but the key is they are not paying more.

I have attempted to enlighten you, you are actively trying to stay endarkened.

Not if there are dozens of systems not connected with each other.


It will help tens of millions of American gain access to healthcare and ends the practice of recission (look it up).

Okay, I've given up on you giving me any useful information. Go read a book? Nice. There are also many books on the pitfalls of universal healthcare and ways to fix our broken healthcare system rather than implode the health system and hope for the best. Are those books better than your books? Probably not, because I'm an idiot so you don't have to defend your views to me.

Just two things and I will stop beating my head against a wall.

The goal of medical records is to allow cross system access. It's not there now no, but when fully implemented I believe offsets the largest gain of smartcards. But I still wouldn't be actively against something like this if it accomplishes the same goals.

The government spends 16% of GDP on healthcare or approximately $600 billion as of 2008.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/index.cfm

Estimated total healthcare expenditures are estimated at $3.1T for 2012 (i.e. patients and private insurers pay some). Last I checked, total revenues the government brought in were between $3-3.5T. So if we want them to fund all of healthcare they will have to spend every dollar they bring in on healthcare. Sure, by consolidating into a single payer system, you may be able to cut some profit out of the system and bring it to $2.5T. But you'd have to raise taxes to do it. Clearly, employers would be one way to do it, but you'll have to charge them more than $750 a head. Also, a tax like that on companies will be fought with people moving operations overseas. How much hard to say how much, but I wouldn't make the assumption that it's a dollar for dollar exchange with existing employers.

So again, explain to me how government run healthcare will be able to provide the same or better level of services than we have now without increases taxes.

[Msut77]

Go read a book? Nice.

I can name two, they are very accessible.

There are also many books on the pitfalls of universal healthcare and ways to fix our broken healthcare system rather than implode the health system and hope for the best.

I doubt that.

Probably not, because I'm an idiot so you don't have to defend your views to me.

Do you know who Kenneth Arrow is? Ever read what he wrote about healthcare?

So again, explain to me how government run healthcare will be able to provide the same or better level of services than we have now without increases taxes.

Do you know how much overhead most government systems have vs. private - for profit insurers?

[smallsharkbigbite]

If those people were allowed access to that system they would have gotten care, that isn't a failure of that program.

You are being ridiculous.

A. People are getting denied Medicaid that need Medicaid. States that have budget issues drag out applications and deny people multiple times before generally they will just give up.

B. Providing such poor reimbursement is another failure of the government. If the government was a single payer they wouldn't be able to afford those rates. Lots of providers lose money and face decisions where to cut care. It's unfair of the government to put them in this position.

I get it though, you believe nothing in health care should be about profit which is why you want a complete government take over. My only concern there is typically governments are large bureaucracies that lead to inefficient practices. The health system in general is motivated to be efficient and find new enhanced technology because they stand to make money off of it. Some efficiencies would be gained by a government takeover, i.e. everyone on the same system etc., but they will focus on areas to cut, not to expand. Do you really envision the next great cancer drug or the next great hip joint or better care in intercities where it's needed most with a government takeover? If you do great, I disagree. I'd like to say neither of us can prove anything until these scenarios play out but I'll just go with idiot since that's what you call me.

[Msut77]

A. People are getting denied Medicaid that need Medicaid.

People get denied access to the system.

That is not a problem caused by the system, also you are against expanding access.


I get it though, you believe nothing in health care should be about profit which is why you want a complete government take over. My only concern there is typically governments are large bureaucracies that lead to inefficient practices. The health system in general is motivated to be efficient and find new enhanced technology because they stand to make money off of it. Some efficiencies would be gained by a government takeover, i.e. everyone on the same system etc., but they will focus on areas to cut, not to expand. Do you really envision the next great cancer drug or the next great hip joint or better care in intercities where it's needed most with a government takeover? If you do great, I disagree. I'd like to say neither of us can prove anything until these scenarios play out but I'll just go with idiot since that's what you call me.

You wrote lots of words not to answer anything.

I don't think the problem is with your mental capacity per say, part of it is your are an ideologue and not very honest.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I can name two, they are very accessible.



I doubt that.



Do you know who Kenneth Arrow is? Ever read what he wrote about healthcare?



Do you know how much overhead most government systems have vs. private - for profit insurers?

Lol, seriously you don't think there are any books about the negatives of social healthcare and ways to fix the system out there? I've read one and a quick pull-up on amazon can find you bunches more. You may disagree that they will have the outcome they claim, but they do exist.

I've heard of him, never read the book. I get it though. Read a bunch of books, then come back with a thesis and I'm worthy to talk to you about the health system. Until then I know nothing and you can't bother to teach me.

I don't know but apparently you do. If you can prove that the government can provide the healthcare for the entire US for the $600M that it currently spends on just Medicare/Medicaid. Then sign me up. But funny thing about those government estimates. They tend to be wrong exponentially.

[dohdough]

How about here:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

45,000 died because Medicaid programs (government programs designed for low income individuals) failed to get them care. And I listed above the Medicares second biggest denial is for lack of medical necessity. But government is good, so we will ignore the flaws in that system.
This is the third time you posted an article that you didn't understand. If Medicare/-caid is insurance, then the lack of insurance is the cause of those 45,000 deaths. Are you saying that they should've had coverage or maybe that the income/asset floor is too low for those that can't qualify for Medicare/-caid?

This has nothing to do with the government being "good" or "bad" when it clearly has good points and bad points. Saying that it's "the government's fault" is a useless canard that's used to distract someone from the real causes.

Congress and they suck in general. That's about all I'm going to go into about that. Healthcare is big enough without entering in all the social/economic problems of the US.
If quality of healthcare is determined by socio-economic factors, you can't separate the two and think that you can have a solution. And if you can't quantify why congress "sucks," then why bother bringing it up at all? Do they make decisions in a vacuum? Are there outside influences? Of course there are. There are lobbyists and corporate campaign contributers, with health insurance and industry lobbyists leading the pack in donations.

Where was the collaboration with the experts and providers? Where was the analysis of the France/Germany/Taiwan systems to see what we could learn and how to make it fit within our broken system? Just because the republicans acted like children for many months doesn't mean that the bill was being worked on or anything meaningful was added in that period.
Republicans and its ilk were talking about foreign systems being socialist and that it can't work here because of American Exceptionalism. C'mon man, I already went through this.

Well then why aren't they passing around there insurance or your insurance? Why do we need this mess of a bill? I know their benefits are greater, and mine are currently too. My point is, how much faith do you have in a congress that tells you, this is good for you, not so much for me?
Because it addresses those that would have no coverage otherwise. Oh...and SOCIALISM, remember?

You've brought this up before and I've agreed with you every time. I'm just more of a realist. I think the possibility of raising taxes significantly (and not using that on debt) is exceedingly low especially with the current republican tag line. As such, I'm limiting myself to having no extra money on the expectation that none will be provided.
So why were you hounding me for not providing any ideas?


Posted before:
Drug profits
Insurance profits
Supply manufacturer profits
implant maker profits
and Physician comp
Huh? I was talking about government spending.

So what you're saying is that we should regulate the fuck out of the industry via taxes and/or cap profits?


I didn't ignore you at all. I agreed that raising taxes/expanding access should be the goal many times. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect congress to agree to raise taxes or society to be able to pay increased taxes with high unemployment.
Why isn't it reasonable to raise taxes on those who can afford it? If wealth disparity hasn't been at this level in 80 years, isn't it reasonable that too much wealth has concentrated at the top? We have a problem when the richest 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 150,000,000. I'd say it's more than reasonable to tax the fuck out of them.

So I move onto the next best step. But France being AAA is a joke. They have more debt per capita than us. Not sure what you mean by Stephen Hawking. He's a person I know that much. But if he has thoughts please outline.
You don't know who Stephen Hawking is? Seriously? He's a Nobel Prize winning physicist that was crippled by a degenerative disease and lived in the UK. The point was that he far exceeded that $20k limit that you posted and he's not the only one. From what you suggested, one would think that no one survives cancer in the UK, which is completely dishonest of you.

Okay, you seem to take this very personally so I'm sorry. I generally respond, then add a few spaces to signify a break, then enter a new topic. I thought this was common and didn't mean you have to respond to everything I say or I win as Msut77 puts it. I thought that was common knowledge, but going forward I won't put anything new in my comments for you.
If you make absurb comments, then be prepared to be called out on them and back them up. If you can't tolerate having your ideas examined, maybe you should find yourself an echo chamber instead.

[Msut77]

Lol, seriously you don't think there are any books about the negatives of social healthcare and ways to fix the system out there?

I believe there are books out there, I don't believe there are any good (in this case honest or objective books) that say what you think they say.

I've heard of him, never read the book.

Kenneth Arrow’s Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care is the book so to speak on healthcare economics.

I also recommend the Healing of America by T.R. Reid.

[smallsharkbigbite]

People get denied access to the system.

That is not a problem caused by the system, also you are against expanding access.




You wrote lots of words not to answer anything.

I don't think the problem is with your mental capacity per say, part of it is your are an ideologue and not very honest.

System = government in this example. And do you read my posts? I have said several times that I'm for expanding access and raising taxes to do it. Must have missed that while cherry-picking things I said that proved I was an idiot.

You write few words and don't answer anything. I can try that.

We clearly have different ideologies. The difference is you believe yours is right and mine is wrong. I respect your opinion and understand it. I just disagree with the outcomes you expect. We will probably not get to see if I was right though because it looks like more and more government intervention will come to play. So we'll probably eventually get to see if your right.

I don't know how I classify as being less honest than you, when all along you constantly bash me (I don't think your problem is mental capacity per say, lol) and you say to understand you I have to read a book. Then you only bring minimal ideas to the table with little support and state this is the way it is. I say great. If it's as easy to cut waste as you say do the government takeover. I just hope I'm wrong that it will lead to decreased access and increased cost of care.

You never did answer my question though, are you in healthcare management? work for an insurance company? the government? What makes your opinions so much more valid than mine? Oh yeah, the books. Since my problem isn't mental capacity per say, am I upgraded from idiot to ignorant?

[Msut77]

System = government in this example.

For profit healthcare is what kills people in this country.

You are trying to blame a government program that not everyone can join, it is pathetic and ridiculous.

And do you read my posts? I have said several times that I'm for expanding access and raising taxes to do it.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

We clearly have different ideologies.

I go by evidence, you go by feelings.

Take a stab at the below again.
Do you know how much overhead most government systems have vs. private - for profit insurers?

I will give you hint, one spends less than 5% the other 20% or more.

Guess which is which.

[smallsharkbigbite]

This is the third time you posted an article that you didn't understand. If Medicare/-caid is insurance, then the lack of insurance is the cause of those 45,000 deaths. Are you saying that they should've had coverage or maybe that the income/asset floor is too low for those that can't qualify for Medicare/-caid?

This has nothing to do with the government being "good" or "bad" when it clearly has good points and bad points. Saying that it's "the government's fault" is a useless canard that's used to distract someone from the real causes.

What's a good point of Medicaid? It's a government program that is supposed to help poor people get healthcare. If people are dying from lack of coverage then they should fall into this category. I would say Medicaid is a total failure from a payer prospective.


Republicans and its ilk were talking about foreign systems being socialist and that it can't work here because of American Exceptionalism. C'mon man, I already went through this.

So the republicans grandstanded to their base. PPACA was nearly finished when they started talking about it. Democrats controlled congress and knew that although they had to go through the motions of looking for a compromise they weren't going to change anything in the bill.

Why isn't it reasonable to raise taxes on those who can afford it? If wealth disparity hasn't been at this level in 80 years, isn't it reasonable that too much wealth has concentrated at the top? We have a problem when the richest 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 150,000,000. I'd say it's more than reasonable to tax the fuck out of them.

Reasonable to expect it. If you think differently you have more faith in congress than I do.

You don't know who Stephen Hawking is? Seriously? He's a Nobel Prize winning physicist that was crippled by a degenerative disease and lived in the UK. The point was that he far exceeded that $20k limit that you posted and he's not the only one. From what you suggested, one would think that no one survives cancer in the UK, which is completely dishonest of you.

Not no one. I'm sure the prime minister, queen, etc. well known people will continue to get great care regardless of how much it costs to keep you alive. Show me a story of a nobody making it happen.

If you make absurb comments, then be prepared to be called out on them and back them up. If you can't tolerate having your ideas examined, maybe you should find yourself an echo chamber instead.

We already talked about most of your points and you seem to keep bringing them up saying I didn't respond. I don't know what else to say to them. Even on points I agree with you with you keep bringing up. Echo chamber, nice. Well I'll go find that echo chamber. PPACA, slogan should have been, our supporters will verbally berate you until you give up. Hope the cares better than the slogan. Congrats, I give up. Enjoy this thread with Msut77.

[Msut77]

It's a government program that is supposed to help poor people get healthcare. If people are dying from lack of coverage then they should fall into this category.

They don't, they were never allowed to join the system in the first place.

Keep repeating the wrong thing, you will keep being corrected.

PPACA was nearly finished when they started talking about it. Democrats controlled congress and knew that although they had to go through the motions of looking for a compromise they weren't going to change anything in the bill.

This is not a knowledge/research failure. This is a complete rewriting of what actually happened.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I could see how saying there wasnt a compromise is technically correct, given that the plan is nearly entirely Republican ideas from the past 40 years.

[dohdough]

What's a good point of Medicaid? It's a government program that is supposed to help poor people get healthcare. If people are dying from lack of coverage then they should fall into this category. I would say Medicaid is a total failure from a payer prospective.

So the republicans grandstanded to their base. PPACA was nearly finished when they started talking about it. Democrats controlled congress and knew that although they had to go through the motions of looking for a compromise they weren't going to change anything in the bill.
Msut77 already addressed these and it doesn't look like you know how poor you need to be to qualify for Medicaid or the ultimately futile fight to lower the age for Medicare. You should look those two things up.

Reasonable to expect it. If you think differently you have more faith in congress than I do.
I don't follow. What are you trying to say here?

Not no one. I'm sure the prime minister, queen, etc. well known people will continue to get great care regardless of how much it costs to keep you alive. Show me a story of a nobody making it happen.
You don't seem to understand how NHS works. EVERYONE has access to that system. It's so crazy over there that they even pay for homeotherapy and mystical treatments. You made it seem as if you can't get any treatment over that arbitrary amount; that simply isn't true.

We already talked about most of your points and you seem to keep bringing them up saying I didn't respond. I don't know what else to say to them.
Well, you didn't until I listed them for you.

Even on points I agree with you with you keep bringing up.
Oh, you mean when you edited your posts after the fact? Which isn't a big deal to be honest, but don't play it off like you put out the ideas in the first place. Not to mention "agreeing" and then going off into a tlaking point that goes against that agreement.

Echo chamber, nice. Well I'll go find that echo chamber. PPACA, slogan should have been, our supporters will verbally berate you until you give up. Hope the cares better than the slogan. Congrats, I give up. Enjoy this thread with Msut77.
At what point did I say I supported PPACA? There are some very good things in it, but even I don't think the good outweighs the bad because it just kicks the can further down the road. We should've had public exchanges and made access to Medicare and Medicaid much easier by increasing minimum income requirements and lowering the age. This would've been the compromise to reach and not another way to fill the coffers of the insurance industry.

If you want to attack PPACA, there are MANY avenues, but you chose the easy way by dropping a talking point bomb, which is pretty much only requires rudimentary knowledge to refute. Either learn some better arguments or figure out why you're arguments are wrong. No one can directly inject knowledge into your brain, you got to do the leg work on your own.

[dohdough]

I could see how saying there wasnt a compromise is technically correct, given that the plan is nearly entirely Republican ideas from the past 40 years.
Sure, but that's like saying that Sarah Palin was right about Paul Revere making warning shots not to steal R GUNZ. Technically, she was "right" because he was arrested and warned*cough*snitched to the Red Coats, but if they don't know that beforehand, they don't get credit for it.

That said, you're right!:lol:

[cochesecochese]

Come on, now, people. If you want to flame Bob, or Knoell, fine. They contribute nothing.

It's heartening to know that I'm not the only one that sees this.

[dmaul1114]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/appeals-court-tosses-health-reform-challenge/2011/09/08/gIQASLESCK_blog.html?hpid=z1

Virginia's challenge to the health care law got thrown out in Appeals Court.

Sounds like the ruling had little to do with the law, but rather ruled that the people bring the suit (Liberty University and the VA Attorney General) didn't have standing to bring the suit.

It was surprise ruling as the judges were Democratic appointees (2 appointed by Obama) and it was thought they'd hear the case and uphold the health care law.

[tivo]

http://www.ajc.com/health/ap-exclusive-long-term-1181055.html?printArticle=y

According to emails disclosed by congressional investigators, government experts repeatedly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan could go belly up, saddling taxpayers with another underfunded benefit program....

Richard Foster, head of long range economic forecasts for Medicare.... "At first glance this proposal doesn't look workable," Foster wrote in an email to other HHS officials, some of whom were working with Congress to get CLASS into the health care law..... Foster said a rough outline of the program would have to enroll more than 230 million people — more than the U.S. workforce — to be financially feasible..... "Thirty-six years of (professional) experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue."

[camoor]

http://www.ajc.com/health/ap-exclusive-long-term-1181055.html?printArticle=y


Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called it "a ticking time bomb that will place taxpayers' money at risk."


Oh shit! My taxpayer money is at risk! lmao

[Msut77]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/ron-paul-says-aide-who-died-with-400k-medical-bill-didnt-need-government-help.php?ref=fpb

[Clak]

I swear, the more I listen to Paul the more I feel like I'm listening to my cranky old grandfather. Next thing you know he'll be bitching about the price of milk and eggs.

Anyway, saying he charged $3 for an office visit in the 50s/60s means exactly jack and shit.

He also blamed the government for regulating medicine: “The federal government comes in and closes down shops that try to sell nutritional medicine and vitamins because the drug companies don’t want competition. That drives the prices up.”Oh yeah, I mean you can't walk into Walgreens and buy vitamins and and everything. Damn gubment.

[camoor]

I swear, the more I listen to Paul the more I feel like I'm listening to my cranky old grandfather. Next thing you know he'll be bitching about the price of milk and eggs.

Anyway, saying he charged $3 for an office visit in the 50s/60s means exactly jack and shit.

Oh yeah, I mean you can't walk into Walgreens and buy vitamins and and everything. Damn gubment.

America with President Ron Paul would be a flat-out catastrophe. First of all he wouldn't implement half the things he professes to, and the crazy policy ideas he did try and follow-up on would end in unmitigated disaster.

[Clak]

We need that what-if machine from Futurama. Because as much as I would hate to see him elected, I'd love to see the results.

[cindersphere]

I swear, the more I listen to Paul the more I feel like I'm listening to my cranky old grandfather. Next thing you know he'll be bitching about the price of milk and eggs.

Anyway, saying he charged $3 for an office visit in the 50s/60s means exactly jack and shit.

Oh yeah, I mean you can't walk into Walgreens and buy vitamins and and everything. Damn gubment.
http://blog.mises.org/17368/ron-paul-mark-thornton-raw-milk/

He already railed against the govt raising the price of milk because of laws against unpasteurized.

[camoor]

http://blog.mises.org/17368/ron-paul-mark-thornton-raw-milk/

He already railed against the govt raising the price of milk because of laws against unpasteurized.

Funny how people lose their minds about this but then lose their minds when shit like the tainted peanut scandal goes down.

[thrustbucket]

America with President Ron Paul would be a flat-out catastrophe. First of all he wouldn't implement half the things he professes to, and the crazy policy ideas he did try and follow-up on would end in unmitigated disaster.

You are partially correct.

The Ron Paul for president movement is a failure for this reason. RP as president would be unable to do anything the people voted for him to do. The movement is better off promoting/creating congressmen and senators of a like mind.

We don't need RP as president, we need to clone him a few dozen times and elect them all to congress.

[dohdough]

You are partially correct.

The Ron Paul for president movement is a failure for this reason. RP as president would be unable to do anything the people voted for him to do. The movement is better off promoting/creating congressmen and senators of a like mind.

We don't need RP as president, we need to clone him a few dozen times and elect them all to congress.
Do you like lead or other toxic chemicals in your water? Do you believe that states should be able to bring back slavery or child labor? Do you remember your history of the US when these things were allowed? You're a joke and I don't know why anyone gives you credit for thinking half a level deeper than our other resident conservative knuckle heads.

We don't need more Ron Pauls; that would turn our country into more of a theocratic corporatist apartheid state than it already is. Not to mention the confederation that would emerge from such policies that would further increase wealth disparity and worsten labor conditions, muchless destroy any semblance of even a rudimentary form of equality.

Did you also cheer when Paul said that we should allow that comatose patient should die? Cause that's the kind of world that we would live in if Paul's policies actually came to fruition. I swear, it's like people don't remember the horrors that happened during the Industrial Revolution. Ron Paul needs to get bent along with all of his mentally stunted supporters.

How's that epiphany coming along?

[Clak]

Funny how people lose their minds about this but then lose their minds when shit like the tainted peanut scandal goes down.
Or the cantaloupe of doom scare currently making the rounds.

[Msut77]

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/house_votes_to_trim_some_health_benefits/

[perdition(troy]

looks good to me

[depascal22]

You are partially correct.

The Ron Paul for president movement is a failure for this reason. RP as president would be unable to do anything the people voted for him to do. The movement is better off promoting/creating congressmen and senators of a like mind.

We don't need RP as president, we need to clone him a few dozen times and elect them all to congress.

Oh hell no. Corporations already do everything they can to pollute the environment and screw over their workers, why would we make it even easier?

[Msut77]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/30/us-penalties-idUSTRE79T2S220111030

During the healthcare "debates" a lot of the "arguments" were variations of "who wants the gubberment to tell you that you can't smoke or eat junk?".

Is it ok now that the free market has spoken?

[camoor]

The House wants to use those savings to pay for the repeal of a law that pressures government contactors to fully pay their taxes.


looks good to me

Troy - I know you are a joke account, but I didn't get this one. Mind explaining?

[Msut77]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/17/370181/two-minutes-of-crazy-michele-bachmann-unleashes-outrageous-new-attacks-against-health-reform-law/

[Msut77]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

[paddlefoot]

Holy Shit! This thread is still going? Please tell me it is some kind of joke thread or abstract OTT

[Msut77]

It is still going in part because shit like this keeps coming:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/02/380582/santorum-insurers-should-discriminate-against-pre-existing-conditions/

[willardhaven]

Republican idiocy is so mind-numbingly redundant... They literally cannot go one day without saying something callous, unintuitive and just plain mean.

They are deriding the positive aspects of a bill which will actually do some good. I don't think the PPACA is perfect but the preexisting condition rule is possibly the best thing about it.

[Msut77]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2385

Republicans were never serious about any reform ever.

At this point anyone who says otherwise is just a goddamn liar.

[xRandizzy]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2385

Republicans were never serious about any reform ever.

At this point anyone who says otherwise is just a goddamn liar.

Politics is "if someone says x and does otherwise they are a y."

If Obama wants "Obama care" than he a socialist.

If a republican says otherwise than he is a liar.

[Msut77]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/417657/santorum-tells-sick-kid-not-to-complain-about-1-million-drug-costs-because-people-pay-900-for-an-ipad/

[Msut77]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/santorum-health-spending-medicaid-contraception-hypocrisy

[Msut77]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lawyers-opposing-health-care-law-cite-kidswithpree,27761/

[Dr Mario Kart]

It seems like ACA is slowing the implementation of the single payer by individual states. Vermont passed single payer last year. However, ACA prevents them from implementing it until 2017, with the possibility of getting a waiver by 2014[1 (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/vermont-single-payer-health-care)]

If its the case that one of the states can start the end of the for profit, primary health insurance industry in America and bring SOCIALISM to our shores, then ACA can go to hell.

[Clak]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/417657/santorum-tells-sick-kid-not-to-complain-about-1-million-drug-costs-because-people-pay-900-for-an-ipad/
Santorum proceeded to lecture the mother (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-tells-sick-kid-market-should-should-set-drug-prices/) and suggest she should be grateful to the drug companies for saving her son’s life. “He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” Santorum said. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here.” He also claimed it would “freeze innovation” if pharmaceutical companies were required to offer their drugs at a reasonable price. If there was any justice their roles would be reversed and he'd have to face the fact that he couldn't afford his child's health care.

[Clak]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/santorum-health-spending-medicaid-contraception-hypocrisy
Presumably, he and Karen have eschewed contraception—and at the age of 48, Karen had Bella.So, based on that I have to assume one of two things. Either 1) at least one of them has issues making it hard for them conceive, or 2) they rarely if ever had sex, which could explain ol' Rick's temperament.

[Clak]

It seems like ACA is slowing the implementation of the single payer by individual states. Vermont passed single payer last year. However, ACA prevents them from implementing it until 2017, with the possibility of getting a waiver by 2014[1 (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/vermont-single-payer-health-care)]

If its the case that one of the states can start the end of the for profit, primary health insurance industry in America and bring SOCIALISM to our shores, then ACA can go to hell.
The thing is, with 50 different systems, some are bound to be better than others, plus there's always the possibility that some states won't do it all, or would eventually end theirs.

[camoor]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/417657/santorum-tells-sick-kid-not-to-complain-about-1-million-drug-costs-because-people-pay-900-for-an-ipad/

Equating taking care of the poor and the ill to a useless luxury like an IPad - it's what Jesus would have done :pray:

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

[Clak]

If that man became president it'd be a national embarrassment. Bush may not have been the sharpest tack, but Santorum is just an outright asshole, and like Denis Leary sang, is proud of it.

[KingBroly]

I'm getting a very strong feeling they'll split this...

[Dr Mario Kart]

The thing is, with 50 different systems, some are bound to be better than others, plus there's always the possibility that some states won't do it all, or would eventually end theirs.
I'm not really a state's rights guy. I think the states are almost universally terrible in the local decisions that they make. But as a trojan horse for SOCIALISM, the opportunity has to be taken.

Single payer wouldnt just stay in one or a few states. It spreads like wildfire and in the process, Republican legislators everywhere will have to be voted out in order to make this possible. In 5-10 years, its in enough states to merge them into regional or a national system.

If the options are, single payer in one of the states as late as 2017, or they can start working on it tomorrow, I'll trade that for a terrible 20 year old Republican plan any day.

[Clak]

I have serious doubts that states like, say Texas, would ever have a single payer system.

[KingBroly]

He's basically arguing a slippery slope. In theory if one state passes a single payer system (and sticks), presumably the rest would follow over time. Over course that time frame would be at least a decade, probably more.


As for Obamacare and the SCOTUS, I suggest people realize what's probably going to happen IF the Individual Mandate is struck down with the bill being severed. I personally think this is how it will go because I believe Kennedy will be wishy washy about this. It's also something the media talking heads aren't discussing today because they probably believe it's going to happen as well.

I also think the ruling with the states over this bill will be the most interesting part of it.

[Clak]

Like I said, I find it hard to believe some states would ever institute a single payer system. If they did it would take much longer than a decade.

[62t]

Romney: Those with pre-existing conditions should be denied coverage

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/28/453474/romney-justifies-denying-health-care-to-people-with-preexisting-conditions-we-cant-play-the-game-like-that/

[KingBroly]

That's not what he said though. He's saying he doesn't think it's right for people to game the system. He doesn't people to go 'I'm sick now, time to buy health care even though I could have done it when I was well.'

Listening to arguments for today, and I get the feeling it's going to be all or nothing now.

[Clak]

That was such a stupid answer to the question, I can't believe the guy got stumped by Jay Leno. There are so many "but what if...." questions to that answer it isn't funny.

[Clak]

Why is it that people get so hung up on the scale of programs like this? i mean it's fine if a state like Massachusetts does it, but if it's a federal program people lost their shit. It's socialism if the federal government does it, it's state's rights if a state does it.

[Snake2715]

I am still confused why the insurance companies are the bad "greedy" ones in most everyones eyes. It seems to me that with MLR that they are now basically being forced out of business in the next 3-10 years.

With a 80% MLR there is no way to pay their staff, negotiations and RESERVES required in case of large claims. The Insurance carriers are not near the top of the most profitible industries, yet they are the targeted ones.

I think the socailism words come in with the thought of target the group that provides the coverage, and once they fall the government will be there to step in.

The Hospitals, Drug companies, Doctors/Dentist offices are always above medical insurance carriers with regards to profits.. Even railroads, oil and gas, industrial machinary manufacturers, etc are much more profitible than the insurance carriers.. In 2009 they were number 35.

In 2010-2011 they are not on the list of 10-20 most profitible at all, the drug companies, doctors offices, medical facilities all were however and continue to be.



When you have small business trying to afford insurance for its employees, and the premiums are 200-400 a single guy with an annual premium at a minimum of 24-48k, and that is if they are all single...

Yet one kid can have an appendix go out and the insurance carrier is on the hook for $25,000 of the $35,000 on that one claim, let alone office and prescription refills for the other employees, for the remaining 52 weeks. I just dont understand how the carriers are the ones being blamed.

[IRHari]

That's not what he said though. He's saying he doesn't think it's right for people to game the system. He doesn't people to go 'I'm sick now, time to buy health care even though I could have done it when I was well.'

Listening to arguments for today, and I get the feeling it's going to be all or nothing now.

If he doesn't want that to happen how will he prevent it?

[dohdough]

That was such a stupid answer to the question, I can't believe the guy got stumped by Jay Leno. There are so many "but what if...." questions to that answer it isn't funny.

If he doesn't want that to happen how will he prevent it?
Some people think that we should only look at his words and not ask about the implications of what he proposes. Because Romney didn't say that we should just let those people die or refuse them coverage, we can't ask him about it.

[camoor]

I am still confused why the insurance companies are the bad "greedy" ones in most everyones eyes. It seems to me that with MLR that they are now basically being forced out of business in the next 3-10 years.

With a 80% MLR there is no way to pay their staff, negotiations and RESERVES required in case of large claims. The Insurance carriers are not near the top of the most profitible industries, yet they are the targeted ones.

I think the socailism words come in with the thought of target the group that provides the coverage, and once they fall the government will be there to step in.

The Hospitals, Drug companies, Doctors/Dentist offices are always above medical insurance carriers with regards to profits.. Even railroads, oil and gas, industrial machinary manufacturers, etc are much more profitible than the insurance carriers.. In 2009 they were number 35.

In 2010-2011 they are not on the list of 10-20 most profitible at all, the drug companies, doctors offices, medical facilities all were however and continue to be.



When you have small business trying to afford insurance for its employees, and the premiums are 200-400 a single guy with an annual premium at a minimum of 24-48k, and that is if they are all single...

Yet one kid can have an appendix go out and the insurance carrier is on the hook for $25,000 of the $35,000 on that one claim, let alone office and prescription refills for the other employees, for the remaining 52 weeks. I just dont understand how the carriers are the ones being blamed.

The most profitable companies are also the most volatile.

I think the fact that most health insurance companies have never failed to make a profit every quarter signals that they are gaming the system.

If covering your expensive treatment gets between an executive and his bonus, then you don't need a magic 8 ball to tell you that your outlook is not so good.

[KingBroly]

If he doesn't want that to happen how will he prevent it?

Honestly I don't know because you're always going to have people gaming of the system. You have a lot of it going on right now, and not just in health care.

I don't think trying to fix 100% of the health care system is a good idea, at least not all at once. You need to fix what needs being fixed, primarily. If regulations are needed to get rid of pre-existing conditions preventing people from buying into care, so be it. But you'd also need to make sure that costs aren't artificially raised up the ass for those people so they can't afford it since insurance companies would try and keep them out in the first place. Just because you have a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're constantly in need of care.

[dohdough]

Honestly I don't know because you're always going to have people gaming of the system. You have a lot of it going on right now, and not just in health care.

I don't think trying to fix 100% of the health care system is a good idea, at least not all at once. You need to fix what needs being fixed, primarily. If regulations are needed to get rid of pre-existing conditions preventing people from buying into care, so be it. But you'd also need to make sure that costs aren't artificially raised up the ass for those people so they can't afford it since insurance companies would try and keep them out in the first place. Just because you have a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're constantly in need of care.
I also don't think that anyone is saying that we can fix 100% of any system.

Btw, does anyone remember when there was a proposal to consider having given birth a pre-existing condition?

[nasum]

what do you call that, sloppy labia?

[KingBroly]

I also don't think that anyone is saying that we can fix 100% of any system.

Btw, does anyone remember when there was a proposal to consider having given birth a pre-existing condition?

Well...I don't think we have to fix much of the health care system to make it more cost effective and cover more people, but Obamacare is the wrong way to do it.

And I don't recall anything about giving birth being a pre-existing condition.

Apparently according what I heard about this afternoon's hearings the Commandeering Clause in it might go down too. That's ultimately the most interesting part of this case.

Still, I'd suggest people read previous rulings by justices to see where they're coming from on issues, particularly Kennedy with the Commerce Clause. It seems a lot of people don't put much effort into looking at those even though they provide great insight to a Justice's Thought Process.

[Msut77]

"Well...I don't think we have to fix much of the health care system to make it more cost effective and cover more people, but Obamacare is the wrong way to do it."

you are wrong.
as for a better solution put up or shut up.

[dohdough]

Well...I don't think we have to fix much of the health care system to make it more cost effective and cover more people, but Obamacare is the wrong way to do it.
Haha...like what? Tort reform?

And I don't recall anything about giving birth being a pre-existing condition.
Apparently, it exists and doesn't go down until 2014 because of PPACA. Insurers apparently can consider it a pre-existing condition for insurance products that aren't subject to HIPAA. I thought it was just some crazy proposal from some insurance lobby, so I looked it up. Boy, am I surprised.

Apparently according what I heard about this afternoon's hearings the Commandeering Clause in it might go down too. That's ultimately the most interesting part of this case.

Still, I'd suggest people read previous rulings by justices to see where they're coming from on issues, particularly Kennedy with the Commerce Clause. It seems a lot of people don't put much effort into looking at those even though they provide great insight to a Justice's Thought Process.
You're joking right?

[KingBroly]

Reading previous rulings does give you insight on what/how they may rule. It's very helpful, actually. They help a lot more than these publicized proceedings, that's for sure.

Wow, that PEC sounds messed up. I wonder what else they consider a pre-existing condition.

This ultimately wouldn't be an issue if it were a tax, because there would be no involvement with the Commerce Clause. But for political reasons they've said it's not a tax. If you want change you're going to have to do it in small doses instead one gigantic pill. You can't just say 'the entire health care system is changing in two years, tough shit.' A lot of people don't like that kind of thinking and you'll get a ton of resistance to show you're wrong. It's also dangerous due to the size of the bills since 'we won't know what's in there until we pass it.'

[Msut77]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10926817-hospital-mom-booted-from-er-to-die-in-jail-was-treated-appropriately

[dohdough]

This ultimately wouldn't be an issue if it were a tax, because there would be no involvement with the Commerce Clause. But for political reasons they've said it's not a tax. If you want change you're going to have to do it in small doses instead one gigantic pill. You can't just say 'the entire health care system is changing in two years, tough shit.' A lot of people don't like that kind of thinking and you'll get a ton of resistance to show you're wrong. It's also dangerous due to the size of the bills since 'we won't know what's in there until we pass it.'
Things change at the drop of a hat all the time and resistance doesn't necessarily mean that someone's doing something wrong. A lot of people were against the Civil Rights Act using the same arguments as you and the teabaggers.

Those that want to kill it aren't concerned with what's actually in it or they would look it up and point to large swaths of items to say what's wrong with it. It's just one giant troll.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10926817-hospital-mom-booted-from-er-to-die-in-jail-was-treated-appropriately
Sometimes I just wanna burn this motherfucker down...

[Msut77]

Things change at the drop of a hat all the time and resistance doesn't necessarily mean that someone's doing something wrong. A lot of people were against the Civil Rights Act using the same arguments as you and the teabaggers.

Those that want to kill it aren't concerned with what's actually in it or they would look it up and point to large swaths of items to say what's wrong with it. It's just one giant troll.


Sometimes I just wanna burn this motherfucker down...

http://youthrevolutionarycouncil.org/?p=1073

video

[KingBroly]

Things change at the drop of a hat all the time and resistance doesn't necessarily mean that someone's doing something wrong. A lot of people were against the Civil Rights Act using the same arguments as you and the teabaggers.

Those that want to kill it aren't concerned with what's actually in it or they would look it up and point to large swaths of items to say what's wrong with it. It's just one giant troll.

For starters, while I may be a Republican, I hate the Tea Party. I understand what they're trying to argue sometimes, but for the most part they go off the rails for the sake of show, nothing more.

As for Obamacare, I just have to ask who looked at it before they voted for it? I know this goes for many a bills that have passed through Congress lately, but the point largely remains the same as Scalia said as much during the oral arguments. Congress, or the members that make them up, are complete morons.

If it were a tax they wouldn't be hearing this. He understands that they got cute with the bill instead of being straight with it. They know what they should have done but for political purposes they didn't write it as a tax so they could say they didn't raise taxes. But that appears to be the reason why they're going to shoot this thing (at least part of it) down unless they completely re-write the bill as a tax, which is something Conservative Justices are inherently against.

[UncleBob]

All they needed was to add a extra 5% tax to everyone, and they could easily implement this..
This mandate might just doom something that could of easily been resolved by TAXING everyone..

A) They didn't even need to raise taxes. Just stop spending billions on bombing brown people.
B) Feel free to thank all those awesome politicians who, instead of doing what they felt was right, wanted to play political games like claim they wouldn't raise taxes and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U

[Msut77]

For starters, while I may be a Republican, I hate the Tea Party. I understand what they're trying to argue sometimes, but for the most part they go off the rails for the sake of show, nothing more.

As for Obamacare, I just have to ask who looked at it before they voted for it? I know this goes for many a bills that have passed through Congress lately, but the point largely remains the same as Scalia said as much during the oral arguments. Congress, or the members that make them up, are complete morons.

If it were a tax they wouldn't be hearing this. He understands that they got cute with the bill instead of being straight with it. They know what they should have done but for political purposes they didn't write it as a tax so they could say they didn't raise taxes. But that appears to be the reason why they're going to shoot this thing (at least part of it) down unless they completely re-write the bill as a tax, which is something Conservative Justices are inherently against.

It really makes me laugh that even you consider the baggers useful idiots.

Scalia talked a lot of shit in the arguments, someone ought to change his diapers more often.

[Knoell]

When you are a filthy rich m*fer' who pays 10-20% less then everyone else in taxes, you can thank your gov't for that.

Proof please.

[Clak]

Elise Jordan was on Bill Maher's show last Friday and said, in regards to national health care, that she didn't want to the federal government telling people what to do. First, sweetheart, the government already tells you what to do in a multitude of ways, if you don't like that, find a place to live without a government, I won't hold my breathe. Second of all, there is no difference, besides scale, between the federal government forcing you to do something and your state's government doing the same thing. There is not a damn difference, so get the fuck off this state's rights bullshit.

[Msut77]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/albuquerque-firefighters-_n_1396972.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Government employees and their gold plated diapers...

[KingBroly]

So who thinks Obama knows the whole bill goes down after what he said today?

[mykevermin]

what did he say today?

[KingBroly]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-obama-healthcare-idUSBRE8310WP20120402

Also consider he had dinner with Kagan on Friday (after the vote). Clearly she didn't say anything to him.

[UncleBob]

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/179341/mj-thriller-popcorn-o.gif

[dohdough]

That's right little bobby...let it all hang out there for everyone to see.

[Msut77]

Someone name an argument one of the clowns made.

[Clak]

I'm readying my rabble rabble judicial activism post just in case.

[Knoell]

Someone name an argument one of the clowns made.


"We need this health care bill because the insurance companies are corrupt and robbing people blind.......wait we would be giving billions MORE to those same companies? Well do you have a better idea? Put up or shut up!"

[Clak]

We do have better ideas but your fellow clown members of government would fight it to hell and back.

[UncleBob]

That's right little bobby...let it all hang out there for everyone to see.

This? Coming from *you*? Of all people?

LOL.


I'm readying my rabble rabble judicial activism post just in case.

It's activism for a court to overturn a unconstitutional law? Weird.