Interesting Moyers Show...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12581698?nclick_check=1


Amazing how much conflict of interest there is in getting any health care reform passed. The financial holdings of our elected legislators make it a damned if they do and damned if they don't proposition.

There really needs to be complete financial disclosure as part of the election process to avoid corruption and scandal going hand in hand with government service.

A lot of truth in that episode.

Lets ask a question for the Canadians and Brits amongst us.

Giving the flaws and failings in you nationalized health care systems. would you be all for changing to an american style employer based private for profit insurance approach?

Well for health care reform to actually take place they'd have to cap medical lawsuits. They'd have to get to the nuts and bolts and control the pricing on each and every procedure.

Hell that's merely a scratch of a scratch....I'm too tired to think what else they'd have to do to fix it. You cant just throw money at the situation.

Medical lawsuits are such a small part of civil actions in this country. The insurance industry always blames lawsuits for the high cost of coverage but that is just not true. Much like the banks used to claim high interest rates on credit cards were due to stolen cards...just not true.

What do you mean by medical lawsuits?

If you are going to dismantle medical care run by profiteers why not go one tiny further and create a malpractice fund to compensate for medical mistakes and negligance. compensation awarded by severity of injury etc. talk about reducing costs. thats a big for health care providers.
We already have examples of succesful government run programs FDIC and NFIP.

What do you mean by medical lawsuits?

malpractice

/nods thank you Rover for the correction.

Lots going on with trying to get ready for the move.

Just watched John Q for the first time yesterday (it was on TNT). I found it to be a very moving movie, and it seemed to address most of what we've discussed in regards to health care for the uninsured/underinsured.

Giving the flaws and failings in you nationalized health care systems. would you be all for changing to an american style employer based private for profit insurance approach?

No way, not ever.

There is some talk and a LOT of resistance to the start of a two teir system.

I will take my slightly increased wait times (in a few select areas) over going bankrupt by a kidney stone thank you very much.


Cheers,

Good article from Americans who have used Canadian Health Care.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/americans-whove-used-cana_b_215256.html

Just watched John Q for the first time yesterday (it was on TNT). I found it to be a very moving movie, and it seemed to address most of what we've discussed in regards to health care for the uninsured/underinsured.


Americans who support the current health care system here all have insurance. The problem is they have never had to use that insurance, by that I mean for a catastrophic illness.

People who support the single payer option are those who have had to use their insurance and suddenly find out that...well...it really doesn't cover you and if it is going to cover you they find a way to cancel your policy. There is no profit in a policy that pays.

The massive disinformation campaign paid for by the insurance companies is just that...disinformation.

malpractice

Do you have anything to back that up?

An incredible amount of money is spent on malpractice defense, insurance, prevention, etc. It might be a small percentage of all tort actions in the country, but it's hardly an insignificant factor in the cost of health care.

Yep...I suppose you could Google it. I think statistically 27% of malpractice law suits are settled in favor of the patient.

I think there is somewhere around 1800 malpractice cases brought every year, that is nationwide.

As an example, when I became sick back in 2000 I went to the emergency room my complaint was shortness of breath and swelling of my lower legs and ankles. In triage I was told it that I qualified as a minor emergency. The Doctor who saw me said that it seemed I had a minor respiratory infection and the swelling was caused by my job being one that I sat at a desk most of the day.

The remedy...take this anti-biotic prescription and take daily walks.

That almost killed me.

The real diagnosis:

Severe congestive heart failure caused by a viral blood infection.

One year after recovering I spoke with attorneys about a malpractice lawsuit. They said that in 5 years in the part of Pennsylvania I live in that there were 2 successful malpractice lawsuits brought and that they believed although I had a very good case the chance of it being settled in my favore was highly unlikely.

If you have some actual data to back that up, it would be interesting to see. Especially if there were some data supporting the idea that the suits that lost actually were credible. A low percentage of winners could just as easily be indicative of the amount of opportunistic fraud they're defending against.

Not to diminish your trouble either. I don't think the medical profession should be above the law. Malpractice should be used to punish egregious incompetence and make victims whole. Unfortunately, it has turned into a great target for dishonest people out for a payday too.

Both sides need serious reform.

Americans who support the current health care system here all have insurance. The problem is they have never had to use that insurance, by that I mean for a catastrophic illness.

People who support the single payer option are those who have had to use their insurance and suddenly find out that...well...it really doesn't cover you and if it is going to cover you they find a way to cancel your policy. There is no profit in a policy that pays.

The massive disinformation campaign paid for by the insurance companies is just that...disinformation.

I support the current system and have been subject to multiple uses for catastrophic illnesses. Yes I have insurance and have never been told no by my provider. And no my policy has never been canceled, although they did start sending me checks one year due to me going over the cap and everything from then on was 100% covered.

The system does need to be reformed but I do not want my medical coverage to be lessened by the government.

One year after recovering I spoke with attorneys about a malpractice lawsuit. They said that in 5 years in the part of Pennsylvania I live in that there were 2 successful malpractice lawsuits brought and that they believed although I had a very good case the chance of it being settled in my favore was highly unlikely.

My grandfather had a triple bypass. The doctors didn't properly stitch up his aorta, and his brain went without proper bloodflow for 8 hours before the doctors figured out why he wasn't recovering properly. After all that, he became basically a vegetable for the following year until he mercifully passed away.

There was not a single doctor in the region that would testify to the malpractice, so my Grandmother had no case to even try to recoup some of the medical bills (he stayed in an assisted living facility after he was dismissed from the hospital about 3 months after his surgery).

The doctors clearly fucked him up. There still was no case to be made because every other doctor in the region was willing to cover it up.

I support the current system and have been subject to multiple uses for catastrophic illnesses. Yes I have insurance and have never been told no by my provider. And no my policy has never been canceled, although they did start sending me checks one year due to me going over the cap and everything from then on was 100% covered.

The system does need to be reformed but I do not want my medical coverage to be lessened by the government.

First who is your insurance provider? Second why would the government lessen your healthcare? It is pretty obvious they wont and have no interest in doing so. How come when it comes to Canada there are always stories that someone heard about long lines and poor coverage, yet when you speak to a Canadian they always say the opposite? Did you ever wonder that?

A lot of truth in that episode.

Lets ask a question for the Canadians and Brits amongst us.

Giving the flaws and failings in you nationalized health care systems. would you be all for changing to an american style employer based private for profit insurance approach?

lol, good one.

First who is your insurance provider? Second why would the government lessen your healthcare? It is pretty obvious they wont and have no interest in doing so. How come when it comes to Canada there are always stories that someone heard about long lines and poor coverage, yet when you speak to a Canadian they always say the opposite? Did you ever wonder that?

My isurance provider is Tricare via retirement and yes it is a privately run insurance company for the government. But running a system for a few is much different than running for all.

I have spoke to and knew many of a Canadian that hate/despise thier healthcare system. Just because noone here says so does not mean it is so. So I guess I never had a reason to wonder that.

So your insurance is government guaranteed and there are no denied claims.

I have never spoken to any person in Canada who has said they do not like their healthcare system and I know quite a few more than the 3 or 4 that post here.

I know aprox a dozen folks from way up north...

only 2 like the system, 5 come to the states to seek private health care and the other 2 never get sick. They claim it's their beer that keeps'em healthy! ;P

It is not government guaranteed, It is privately contracted by the government. And recently I have been denied a perscription but I am ok paying the full price for quitting smoking.

It is not government guaranteed, It is privately contracted by the government. And recently I have been denied a perscription but I am ok paying the full price for quitting smoking.

It is government guaranteed, it is guaranteed by your pension that you have full healthcare coverage. So you were denied the Patch or equivalent, so much for your plan managing healthcare. They'll pay for your cancer operation but not the few dollars in an effort to prevent it.

As far as Canada goes...once again we see the "I know someone who hates it there" but of course the Canadians here must be idiots because as they have posted it works just fine, they can choose any doctor they like (which most plans here you cant), they are not denied coverage (where here you are except Korlis who is never denied any coverage except this time)

I don't understand why people buy the fear...they buy into it with Healthcare, The Banks, The Energy companies...the Three biggest drains on our economy and people let it go on...

At least the Iranians are smart enough to know when they are getting fucked.

It is guaranteed by the money I pay to keep it that I have coverage. As for the perscription I gladly paid the money to quit smoking for Chantix.(it cost about what I pay a month in cigs so use that for 2-3 months and be done).

I dunno growing up even now I had good dealings with many different healthcare insurers. I never had a problem when the bills I recieved totaled more than 200k I only really ended up paying 170. As long as I keep paying into the plan there is no thing as pre-existing conditions but if I am stupid and let 30 days lapse then that is my fault not the insurers. I knew that going into it. Just because you had a terrible experience with healthcare does not mean we all have.

It is guaranteed by the money I pay to keep it that I have coverage. As for the perscription I gladly paid the money to quit smoking for Chantix.(it cost about what I pay a month in cigs so use that for 2-3 months and be done).

I dunno growing up even now I had good dealings with many different healthcare insurers. I never had a problem when the bills I recieved totaled more than 200k I only really ended up paying 170. As long as I keep paying into the plan there is no thing as pre-existing conditions but if I am stupid and let 30 days lapse then that is my fault not the insurers. I knew that going into it. Just because you had a terrible experience with healthcare does not mean we all have.

You are stunningly ignorant.

I am ignorant? How because I pay for my insurance and do not want to pay for people who forego insurance for vacations, cars, toys, etc. I know tons of people who could afford insurance but choose to burden the system because they would rather have thier fun.

I am ignorant? How because I pay for my insurance and do not want to pay for people who forego insurance for vacations, cars, toys, etc. I know tons of people who could afford insurance but choose to burden the system because they would rather have thier fun.

tldr: fuck you, i got mine.

wow such ignorance.

All i am saying is that I have had to use our current healthcare system much more than most and without problems.
As for Medicare being a great example why do people buy riders for more coverage if the government side of the insurance is so great. Even my government contracted insurance company offers riders for medicare for better coverage. That does not give me a warm fuzzy.

I am ignorant? How because I pay for my insurance and do not want to pay for people who forego insurance for vacations, cars, toys, etc. I know tons of people who could afford insurance but choose to burden the system because they would rather have thier fun.


You are ignorant and the quote above shows exactly why.

Ok I am ignorant because I know people who do this exact thing?

Ok I am ignorant because I know people who do this exact thing?


You are ignorant because you act as if people with no health insurance are in that position because they are all out partying and having a good time. The people you know are a tiny minority I'm sure.

A very close friend of mine owns a decent sized manufacturing company based here in the US. He provides health insurance to his employees, he pays 2/3 and the employee pays 1/3. His outlay to the insurance company is over $650,000.00 per year...in this economy it becomes unsustainable. Do you realize the gross dollars he must bring in to just provide that care? Most of his employees opt for the $5000.00 deductible. A very clear majority of people don't spend anywhere near $5000.00 per year on Doctors visits meaning that most plans cost the Insurance provider nothing and are pure gross profit.

Health insurance for me is priced at $4500.00 per month with a deductible of $2500.00 and no prescription coverage. If I am hospitalized with a cardiac problem and even get an ICD implant, a private room and unbridled healthcare (meaning the insurance company is not telling my Doctors how to treat me because it is undeniable that is what they do) Then take into account what they won't cover. My total cost would be in the area of $120,000.00 out of pocket which equals 2 years and 3 months worth of insurance payments by me. Why would I want a shitty private plan?

And your plan...pays everything, you pay 100% of the premium and the rates are frozen even with it paying over $200k in claims. Man you're doing better than a Senator.

The insurance industry is going nuts and trying to stop single payer health insurance even though it is clear people can keep their current plans if they so choose. Do you know why they are fighting? Because single payer healthcare while providing the current level of service or better than a private plan will cut way into the profits of an industry that is bordering on a monopoly of the American peoples and American businesses pocket books.

The insurance Industry came right out and said.."Single payer would have the same or better level of care that we currently see with far lower administrative costs making competition by private insurers very difficult, we would be forced to cut costs and profits" That is almost verbatim what they said. Single payer would also immediately slash costs by $400 Billion dollars.

So you have the best plan in the world, you won't have to switch...why the opposition to others having health care? It won't cost you anything if a single payer plan is rolled out.

I understand your frustration and I am not ignorant because I do understand what my plan is compared to some others but even others where I work with thier various plans have very good plans. I have had crappy plans before and even have paid for them hoping I would not get too sick. But there is a system in place for people who cannot afford healthcare and it is already government run (medicare). Yes I have heard/read horror stories about medicare and I wouldn't want to be on it even though I will have to at some point. Single payer... medicare for the masses is the same thing.

There has to be some better way rather than relying on the government and I already pay alot in taxes to most likely see it rise more.

I understand your frustration and I am not ignorant because I do understand what my plan is compared to some others but even others where I work with thier various plans have very good plans. I have had crappy plans before and even have paid for them hoping I would not get too sick. But there is a system in place for people who cannot afford healthcare and it is already government run (medicare). Yes I have heard/read horror stories about medicare and I wouldn't want to be on it even though I will have to at some point. Single payer... medicare for the masses is the same thing.

There has to be some better way rather than relying on the government and I already pay alot in taxes to most likely see it rise more.

seriously, im going to have to agree with rover; stunning ignorance on so many levels. educate yourself on how your country's healthcare system = shit.

I understand your frustration and I am not ignorant because I do understand what my plan is compared to some others but even others where I work with thier various plans have very good plans. I have had crappy plans before and even have paid for them hoping I would not get too sick. But there is a system in place for people who cannot afford healthcare and it is already government run (medicare). Yes I have heard/read horror stories about medicare and I wouldn't want to be on it even though I will have to at some point. Single payer... medicare for the masses is the same thing.

There has to be some better way rather than relying on the government and I already pay alot in taxes to most likely see it rise more.

You think you don't already pay for it? You pay with every thing you buy. You pay for it in lost tax revenues as people lose their jobs because companies must outsource jobs to China, India the Phillipines. You are paying for it with the bankruptcy of GM, Chrysler and countless other businesses. You pay for it everyday and our children will be paying for it far far into the future. The current system is bankrupting our country plain and simple and it is a FACT that single payer will have an immediate effect on the bottom line of not only businesses but of American families.

Don't buy the Kool Aid the insurance companies and corporate media are selling.

I just don't understand the problem with the government providing added competition. If insurance through the government is worse (insert arguments about government inefficiency here), then people will stick with private insurance. If insurance through the government is better, then that competition forces the private insurance companies to improve their services or go out of business. In either case, the insurance available should be at least as good, if not better; the only people that stand to lose anything are those working for private insurance companies. Right?

Thats pretty much it in a nutshell Pala. I'm all for it, would be nice to actually have insurance, affordable or otherwise and not have these insurance companys dictate whats best for profit.
I really dont see whats so bad about having the Public payer option. Only ones that are frightened of it, are the Private insurance companys or those who think commies are still out to get em.
Times have changed, more and more people are willing to give this stuff a try. It will sure beat having nothing.

I have always been amused that the people who believe that government is too inefficient to do anything right also believe that a government health care option will destroy private enterprise. We already have parallel system in that Medicare/Medicaid exist, and did not drive private insurers out of business. Extending the extraordinarily efficient Medicare program and undoing the Medicaid D catastrophe can be nothing but a net win, and at worst simply moves an unstated tax deficit (covering all the ER care) to one we can at least manage.

I'm further amused that the "inefficient government" crowd also fights tooth and nail against any sort of end-to-end value assessment in public health.

And I am further amused, tho' a touch disheartened, that folks still seem to believe calling others a name or denigrating them in some way can further a debate or discussion. It does not strike me as a debate tool for opening more communication.

Telling someone they are ignorant of a situation is not name calling, it is debate language.

Telling someone they are ignorant of a situation is not name calling, it is debate language.


When someone says "I know of people who are doing X.", and you tell them they are ignorant you are denigrating that person, and showing your own ignorance and intolerance at the same time because you have redefined what they said into what you want to hear and debate. He did not say everyone in the health care system; he said "I know people" which is a much smaller data base.

I say you are intolerant because you only want to discuss the single point that interests you, and I say ignorant in that you have allowed yourself to slip into the redefinition of your debate opponent's words so that you are no longer discussing what he said but what you want to claim he has said.

The debate has become moot.


On a side note, I cannot recommend highly enough picking up for your coffee table a copy of "Moot Points", deranged drawings by J.C. Duffy.

Does the Obama paradigm of socialized health care require that you participate and require doctors to participate? I thought during the campaign, his did require participation, but haven't been paying much attention to that lately.

Does the Obama paradigm of socialized health care require that you participate and require doctors to participate? I thought during the campaign, his did require participation, but haven't been paying much attention to that lately.

The general gist was that you were required to have some sort of health care, but not necessarily whatever government program they come up with. Naturally it's all speculation until we actually get a bill on the floor with all the attendant design by committee.

How about the doctors? Was the general gist that they would have to participate?

Obama's theoretical plan will pay for any doctor one chooses.

When someone says "I know of people who are doing X.", and you tell them they are ignorant you are denigrating that person, and showing your own ignorance and intolerance at the same time because you have redefined what they said into what you want to hear and debate. He did not say everyone in the health care system; he said "I know people" which is a much smaller data base.

I say you are intolerant because you only want to discuss the single point that interests you, and I say ignorant in that you have allowed yourself to slip into the redefinition of your debate opponent's words so that you are no longer discussing what he said but what you want to claim he has said.

The debate has become moot.


On a side note, I cannot recommend highly enough picking up for your coffee table a copy of "Moot Points", deranged drawings by J.C. Duffy.

Telling someone they are ignorant because they say that the way things are now are the way they should be is not ignorant nor intolerant. Read back, he only offered his explanation after I said he was "Stunningly Ignorant".

He offered up the reason as being people who don't have healthcare choose to be that way because they take big vacations, buy big screen TV's and party their days away and he knows it to be a fact because he knows people that do that.

I think we all know irresponsible people, they exist, but they are the excuse put out there by the insurers and the corporate media shills as being the reason why costs are so high.

Costs are high because every quarter the insurers must show an increase in profits. And how do they do that? By denying coverage and claims and increasing premiums and paying less to doctors and hospitals.

Korlis has no understanding and that is why he is ignorant of the situation and was, as I stated, long before he knew someone who took a vacation.

Obama's theoretical plan will pay for any doctor one chooses.

So, is that to say that it will force doctors to participate?

I think we all know irresponsible people, they exist, but they are the excuse put out there by the insurers and the corporate media shills as being the reason why costs are so high.

Costs are high because every quarter the insurers must show an increase in profits. And how do they do that? By denying coverage and claims and increasing premiums and paying less to doctors and hospitals.

Korlis has no understanding and that is why he is ignorant of the situation and was, as I stated, long before he knew someone who took a vacation.

Ok, well stated.

So, is that to say that it will force doctors to participate?

I don't think it forces anyone to do anything. Doctors also have freedom to chose which patients they will see.

I don't think it forces anyone to do anything. Doctors also have freedom to chose which patients they will see.

Back in 97 or 98 (funny I would forget this) my doctor told me he would no longer see me unless I quit smoking, due to the bronchial problems he had to treat me for each winter. So he had some say in the matter back that far, I guess. And, having quit then, I have never had bronchitis since, and it was like 8-10 years running I had it each winter before that.

In the end who pays for who and does Joe "I don't want to work" Schmoe get the same coverage I have to pay 500 bucks a month for or is there to be a class division all over again ;P

I don't think it forces anyone to do anything. Doctors also have freedom to chose which patients they will see.

It would be important to know for sure. "See any doctor you want" and "doctors have the freedom to choose which patients they will see" doesn't necessarily jive.

It would be important to know for sure. "See any doctor you want" and "doctors have the freedom to choose which patients they will see" doesn't necessarily jive.


Ok then...how about this: Currently in America people are not able to choose any doctor they would like to see and doctors are often limited by the insurance providers as to which patients they can see. Under the theoretical Obama health plan a person would be able to choose any doctor they would like as long as that doctor has chosen to practice by the tenets of the hippocratic oath. A doctors own morals and/or specialty would dictate their choice of who they would see.

Easy enough to understand I think...we could always post the question on the Simple Jack forums if you'd like.

In the end who pays for who and does Joe "I don't want to work" Schmoe get the same coverage I have to pay 500 bucks a month for or is there to be a class division all over again ;P

The who pays for who doesn't change as far as I know. You'll still pay for everyone just like you are doing now. The difference is I think if single payer passes, you'll pay less.

Ok then...how about this: Currently in America people are not able to choose any doctor they would like to see and doctors are often limited by the insurance providers as to which patients they can see. Under the theoretical Obama health plan a person would be able to choose any doctor they would like as long as that doctor has chosen to practice by the tenets of the hippocratic oath. A doctors own morals and/or specialty would dictate their choice of who they would see.

Easy enough to understand I think...we could always post the question on the Simple Jack forums if you'd like.

Currently, some of the best doctors don't accept insurance at all for office visits. Are you saying they'd be forced to participate in this nationalized plan to continue practicing?

That's what I'm asking.

okay, well of course I want folks taken care of. But i think this is the wrong way to attack it. You don't fix a process by attacking it mid or end stream.

They need to get control of the minutae not the big bang so it makes everyone "think" it's being worked.

http://leanhealthcarewest.com/

Yes I'm a Lean nut job, but I think they need to apply a different mindset as opposedd to just throwing money at this health care issue.

http://leanhealthcarewest.com/

Yes I'm a Lean nut job, but I think they need to apply a different mindset as opposedd to just throwing money at this health care issue.

(which was one of the factors that landed me a position working with Excell up in Washington )

Other was knowing the right people of course, but he was very happy to find out I'm Lean friendly :P

Currently, some of the best doctors don't accept insurance at all for office visits. Are you saying they'd be forced to participate in this nationalized plan to continue practicing?

That's what I'm asking.


I don't know...I'm not writing the plan. What qualifies a Doctor at being one of the best Doctors? Mine accepts insurance but I pay using a Mastercard Debit Card. I think my doctor is the best, because unlike the doctors that misdiagnosed me or the ones that couldn't figure out that I was itching all over and losing my hearing because of an allergic reaction, he caught it in less than 5 minutes and changed my medication. So he saved my life and that makes him the best doctor I know.

So in my opinion the best doctor in America is my doctor and he accepts both insurance and self pay....he also gives a 40% discount to self pay because that 40% is what he ends up giving the insurance company to help keep them profitable.

My wife and I decided to try a new approach to our health care last year (to start this year).... we went with the high deductible plan, maxed out our Health Savings Account, and projected 2k in hour Health Spending Account.

Last week I had an EGD and a vocal cord biopsy and saw no money come directly out of my pocket... I just handed over my credit card, and my insurance card and it went smooth as silk.

We were not expecting to have a procedure of this size but it will end up working out in our favor as it turns out.

It took some looking at, as it is foreign to us not to just go with the golden,top notch policy, but we had 4 different plans to look at.

I am more in favor of the individual taking care of him/herself, making the decisions that work for them, and adjusting as the punches roll in...

btw, the vocal cord is fine, it seems I have some gastric reflux with no symptoms except a small bump (which was shaved off) on one of my cords.... :)

I don't know...I'm not writing the plan. What qualifies a Doctor at being one of the best Doctors? Mine accepts insurance but I pay using a Mastercard Debit Card. I think my doctor is the best, because unlike the doctors that misdiagnosed me or the ones that couldn't figure out that I was itching all over and losing my hearing because of an allergic reaction, he caught it in less than 5 minutes and changed my medication. So he saved my life and that makes him the best doctor I know.

So in my opinion the best doctor in America is my doctor and he accepts both insurance and self pay....he also gives a 40% discount to self pay because that 40% is what he ends up giving the insurance company to help keep them profitable.

Easy enough to understand I think...we could always post the question on the Simple Jack forums if you'd like.

Well, you certainly seemed to think that you had all the answers a few hours ago, so I thought you might know!

Just because your doctor accepts both cash and insurance doesn't mean all of them are willing to deal with the insurance hassle. If a nationalized plan forces them to participate to practice, that's a serious issue.

we went with the high deductible plan, maxed out our Health Savings Account

That's what I do. It works great for me too.

People treat their insurance too much as a head-to-toe security blanket instead of as insurance. You wouldn't buy homeowners insurance that covers every blown light bulb and leaky faucet, yet people tend to think they need that sort of health insurance.

Cover me in disasters and let me worry about the upkeep.

I just spent two hours on the phone with a friend (best friend from childhood, Yay Facebook) I had not talked with since approx 1991, when we lost touch. He has heart disease, and leukemia which has been in remission. He has been told by his doctor that the leukemia may be coming back, and the medicine they want to prescribe is a $1500 per month copay. He gets $1325 approx per month from Social Security. How will any of the Health Care programs being proposed help to keep him alive? He is 56.

That is all I care about, to be honest. What will these programs do to keep people alive. Isn't that, after all, the basis of the Hyppocratic oath?

Well one thing, if that medicine has a generic brand he can get it subsidized from a bunch of places for like $4 / month.
There's also that thing Montel Williams yaps about ... some pharmaceutical company will provide free meds to people who can't afford it. I don't know the name of the program, but I've shot dozens of interviews for their PR firm about it.

I can't help but think that any plan Congress and our President work out will probably be great for the uninsured / underinsured, great for businesses who won't have to pay their employees' medical benefits (and thus can afford to hire more), but probably rough on those people who have a job right now that provides them stellar benefits (though this list is shrinking).

Well, you certainly seemed to think that you had all the answers a few hours ago, so I thought you might know!

Just because your doctor accepts both cash and insurance doesn't mean all of them are willing to deal with the insurance hassle. If a nationalized plan forces them to participate to practice, that's a serious issue.



That's what I do. It works great for me too.

People treat their insurance too much as a head-to-toe security blanket instead of as insurance. You wouldn't buy homeowners insurance that covers every blown light bulb and leaky faucet, yet people tend to think they need that sort of health insurance.

Cover me in disasters and let me worry about the upkeep.

Look at the big brain on Sanchek, oh you got me...because I said "I dont know" the statement you most lack in your vocabulary, you should try it every once in a while. Who would have ever thought that not every doctor is exactly like mine?

In congressional hearings yesterday Insurance executives were questioned on an issue known as recission, this is when an insurance company suddenly cancels a policy of a sick person.

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

....Late in the hearing, Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives: "No."

Upon graduation from Medical School new Doctors take an oath, this is the modern version written in 1964:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

I'll go out on a limb and say that a Doctor most certainly could choose whether or not to accept single payer health insurance, I would hope though that their allegiance to their oath as practitioners would trump their politics (which could be the only reason for not accepting single payer patients). It would be a moral outrage for a patient to go untreated due to a particular doctors politics.

"I swear by Apollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo), the healer, Asclepius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius), Hygieia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygieia), and Panacea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panacea), and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine); to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_prescription#History) regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere) to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia), nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessary) to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotomy), even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery).
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."




Strange how the part about "never do harm" to anyone has been removed from the new oath, seeing as choosing not to treat could be construed as doing harm, in many cases.

Cover me in disasters and let me worry about the upkeep.

That would be great (if the least economically efficient way of delivering health care strictly in terms of ultimate cost regardless of provider system)... if private insurance companies acted in good faith on the 'covering you in disasters' end. An enormous body of evidence (the subject of numerous Nightline, NPR, etc, investigations over the last few years) indicates that the major insurance companies have been increasingly acting in *bad* faith with regard to that very issue for the sake of the ol' bottom line, and when called on the carpet in Congress this week, every one of the representatives of the major insurance firms said that they would not even curtail the practice of 'rescission' (dropping someone's coverage after a diagnosis) except in cases of fraud and analysis of records indicates that medical records are routinely pored over with a fine-tooth for the purpose of finding any irregularity in the records, no matter how small, that might allow them to drop patients:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,5870586.story

In short, those of you who think you have 'great insurance' now may not find it so great when you actually end up needing it (especially if you end up getting diagnosed with cancer, which seems to result in particularly high recission rates).

I'd also like to remind everyone who has been asking questions about it, that the so called 'public option' being discussed *hasn't* been shown to the public, and the bought-and-paid for Blue Dog Democrats (several of whom, including Mary Landrieu of LA, got big checks this *week* from Big Pharma and the insurance industry) are huddled up with the Republicans in meetings trying to strangle it (the public option) in its crib despite overwhelming public support:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dem-gop-centrists-meet-in-secret-2009-06-16.html

The reason that we *need* a real public option, not co-ops, and not only if things get 'so bad' with out current system that seven years down the road (conveniently, a Presidential election year) we decide that reform has to 'kick in', is because right now there is *no* pressure (in any direction except up) on prices and no pressure to keep the insurance companies or Big Pharma even acting in a semi-ethical fashion (see the LA Times article). The entire point of a public option is to allow a government run alternative to privately purchased insurance to be made available for public purchase that is large enough to exert meaningful competition (and hence pressure) on the insurance industry.

That competition is *exactly* what the insurance and drug industries fear, because they see it as coming to kill their cash cow. What they don't want to face is that the bursting of the health care bubble is upon us - the cow is on its last emaciated legs anyway. Companies and individuals increasingly can't afford to pay for insurance for their employees, doctors are 'opting out' and going cash option or cash only (great if you have the cash, sucks to be you if you don't). Here are come current statistics on the sorry state of health care and general health of American citizens after the last 30 years of the insurance spiral (from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont's web page, one of the very few who had come out in favor of single payer):

* 46 million Americans are currently without health insurance;
* 60 million Americans, both insured and uninsured, have inadequate access to primary care due to a shortage of physicians and other health service providers in their community;
* 100 million Americans have no insurance to cover dental needs;
* 116 million adults, nearly two-thirds of all non-seniors, struggled to pay medical bills, went without needed care because of cost, were uninsured for a time, or were underinsured in the last year;
* The United States spends $2.3 trillion each year on health care, 16 percent of its Gross Domestic Product;
* Americans spend $7,129 per person on health care, 50 percent more than other industrialized countries, including those with universal care;
* The U.S. does not get what it pays for. We rank among the lowest in the health outcome rankings of developed countries, and on several major indices rank below some third-world nations;
* The number of health insurance industry bureaucrats has grown at 25 times the growth of physicians in the past 30 years;
* In 2006, the six largest insurance companies made $11 billion in profits even after paying for direct health care costs, administrative costs and marketing costs.

And:

* Medicare has administrative costs far lower than any private health insurance plan;
* The potential savings on health insurance paperwork (by going to single payer), more than $350 billion per year, is enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every uninsured American.

I'm really sorry that this post is so long, but this is a complex topic. Speaking of single-payer, it should be noted that while single-payer would by every measure be the most cost effective option by a wide margin, the collective screams (and subsequent hatchet money) from our insurance/pharmaceutical industries made sure that the Conyers and Sanders bills/petitions never saw the light of day. To those who would say that the public option is too radical, and that we need to 'compromise' with those industries, and that the public option would mean a lower quality of coverage for those who like what they have, I'd like to reiterate that the public option *is* a compromise - and in no way will interfere directly with the ability of existing insurance companies and drug companies to recruit contracts and negotiate prices. What it *will* do is ensure that every American has guaranteed *access* to coverage, something that nearly a quarter of Americans don't even have in the most basic sense (save highly inefficient emergency room trips as they fall through all cracks) - and if it's done well, as opposed to done as a hatchet job intended to fail, it'll help exert price and *legitimate* efficiency pressure on insurers, the pharmaceutical industry and practicioners.

We have a right to be concerned about what ends up written in the public option. A badly designed program could end up being worse than none at all - to wit, the Medicare D 'drug coverage' abomination and giveaway to the drug companies at the net *expense* of both of the government and patients. Four years into that program the results of the government being *forbidden* to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry are being felt - with no price pressure at all, orgy-of-gouging costs are getting passed on to insurers which are getting passed on to... elderly and disabled patients, who find themselves in a situation where they effectively *have* no coverage and no ability to change providers as that provider has a monopoly (Humana in Texas, for example, as my partner recently found out).

My roommate, Philip, has been on disability for years for a spinal cord injury and also has diabetes and high blood pressure (the latter as a result of genetics and central pain and neurological feedback issues common to paraplegics). When Medicare Part D was implemented, joined one of the (private) providers that offered prescription drug coverage (in exchanged for increased premiums). His co-pays were recently raised from 5.00 to 40.00 per medication. He takes six different medications, only one of which is even available as a generic. After his Medicare deduction, his SSI check is just over 600.00/mo, 240.00 of which goes straight to his meds, leaving him about 350.00/mo for... everything else, assuming he needs no other medical supplies or doctors' visits.

My sister, who has cervical nerve damage due to a car accident and bipolar disorder, has medications which cost her 1500.00/mo, and she just lost her job (and thus insurance). I know, cry me a river, but the point I am trying to make is that EVEN IF YOU HAVE 'GOOD' INSURANCE, you are absorbing these costs, and your employer is, and for the last thirty years we have had to pay more and more for less and less because of the unrestrained profit motive - and it's cannibalizing the American economy.

A robust public option without 'triggers' or divided into meaningless 'co-ops' with no negotiating muscle is the very least invasive option that stands a chance of stopping this spiral. As the article I linked at the top of this very lengthy post gives testimony to, the insurance industry and Big Pharma aren't going to do it themselves. Indeed, they're digging deep to ensure that things stay just as they are: a NYT article published last week indicated that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have spent in excess of 3.5 *billion* dollars on lobbying efforts in the year ending May of 2009, a 119% increase over last year for one of the major players (looking for it now in the archives, unfortunately, I didn't bookmark it).

For those of you who have posted in here that you like for what you have worked for, and are afraid that any sort of mandated national coverage would leave you 'paying for deadbeats', I'd submit to you that you've been doing that for years both coming and going. Over a third of what you and your employer now pay in premiums and copays now doesn't deliver health care to *anyone at all*, what you do pay has been covering increasingly bloated costs fueled by all those *new* purple pills to replace the ones going out of patent, unneeded diagnostic procedures and the sexy new equipment required for them, and the money that you pay in taxes to cover the currently uninsured and underinsured is spent in some the least efficient ways possible on catastrophic illnesses that frequently could have been prevented by timely access to even a nurse practitioner. The first HMOs, when they actually were attempting to serve the public, knew this and understood the *efficiency* of preventative and routine care - having people's minor illnesses managed before they become million dollar problems saves everyone in the long run.

Our health care system is a broken, parasitic disgrace. We get much less for what we pay into it than any other system in the western world and for no better reason than the glorious supplication of 'free enterprise' (hardly operating in a system that is increasingly de facto monopoly markets anyway). The lack of universal health care in this country leaves people slaves to jobs they hate, saps our productivity in every sense of the word, and for the pro-free enterprise crowd, it paradoxically undermines our ability to be competitive in the global economy in a variety of ways due to the rampant siphoning off of resources to feed the Health Care maw. A robust public health care option is the very *least* we can do to try to inject some sanity into our approach to health care in this country, and except for the very rich, rationing of health care is and has already been here, so arguments about how such an option would interfere with 'choice' simply don't hold water.

Regards,
Nydia

And good article on the 'rationing' of health care red herring issue here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html?em


Regards,
Nydia

Look at the big brain on Sanchek, oh you got me...because I said "I dont know" the statement you most lack in your vocabulary, you should try it every once in a while. Who would have ever thought that not every doctor is exactly like mine?

You socialists sure are angry people.

The funny thing about it is that I'm all for giving this silly nationalization experiment a try, as long as it 1) has a sunset and 2) doesn't force my doctor to participate. I was just trying to get that clarification (you know, as in "I don't know") before committing, because it's a key point for me.

So, um, way to pointlessly be an ass to someone thinking about swinging your way. Why are you people all so angry, even after you got your boy in office?

Dear Sanchek: I'm guessing I'm one of those 'you socialists' you're referring to, so I'll respond. Obama, as you know, wasn't my 'boy' (although hey, nice choice of words, considering :P ), but a lot of the left is angry, or at least concerned, about both Obama and our own Dems in Congress selling the people who brung them in this election down the river using the protest of 'bipartisanship' as cover while they obfuscate and scuttle any good faith attempts at substantive reform (on the financial industry end, as well as health care btw, as we've discussed) at the bidding of their true masters, the lobbyists to whom they are financially beholden.

We're also angry that the insurance industry and our own Congress is deliberately misleading and thumbing their nose at the public with regard to its legitimate petition for, and questions about, redress (they keep coming up with excuses not to release any details of the proposed public option to the public), and concerned that they will use the same scare tactics that worked in 1993 (and if a sampling from this thread is any indication, some of you are well-prepared to bite) to torpedo public support/demand for healthcare reform now when our circumstances are much more dire.

And we especially get mad about things like this: http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health-care-follies/?em

(the tone is one of banter, but the statement made here by Gail Collins has been verified):
(Senate Minority Leader Mitch) McConnell and his faithful Republican Whip, Jon Kyl, have announced they’re introducing a bill to *prohibit* (emphasis mine) the government from using comparative effectiveness research or other tools to reduce health care costs. They’re raising the specter of health care rationing and trying to terrify the public into opposing the most critical and sensitive part of Obama’s entire effort, cost control.

Ask yourself - what good could possibly be served by such a bill, unless you had a vested interest in making sure that any attempt at reform, or a meaningful public option, was a disaster?

I'm as concerned as you are about what is going to emerge from this debate - as I've said, it's entirely possible that what actually makes it out the backrooms and comes up for a vote may end up worse than doing nothing at all (see Medicare part D) - which is why it's important to demand transparency now.

What *I* wish I could make people understand, who cling to the idea that because they've got it alright now, that any change that covers more people would make their own situation 'worse', is that all of our situation with regard to health care has been getting worse for a long time, and that they are paying for the uninsured and underinsured *now*, whether they realize it or not, the only salient question with regard to that particular issue being how efficiently or inefficiently we wish to do so.

Considering that single payer isn't even on the table, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario wherein you or your doctor would be forced to participate (doctors don't have to accept Medicare now, and many don't, in any case), and I'm sure that it's going to be raised as a scare/wedge issue, but I'm sure the issue of participation will come with its own carrots/sticks for doctors, just like the various other health plans do.

Regards,
Nydia

You socialists sure are angry people.

The funny thing about it is that I'm all for giving this silly nationalization experiment a try, as long as it 1) has a sunset and 2) doesn't force my doctor to participate. I was just trying to get that clarification (you know, as in "I don't know") before committing, because it's a key point for me.

So, um, way to pointlessly be an ass to someone thinking about swinging your way. Why are you people all so angry, even after you got your boy in office?


Oh, he called me a socialist, the same guy who thinks it's ok to give money to AIG and Wall St banks because they make bad decisions calls me a socialist because I think that all Americans deserve healthcare.

Look, stop it. Your whole point was to try and make me look foolish for saying "I don't Know", don't try to paint it as something else.

Dear Sanchek: I'm guessing I'm one of those 'you socialists' you're referring to, so I'll respond.

Nah, just Rover lashing out left and right at people on this thread.

Again this grand experiment will fail horribly for one reason. It does absolutely nothing to help teach folks how to administer the costs of health care. It does nothing to remove the worthless and innane costs of the actual procedures etc.

Nuts and bolts before you start to play with throwing money please. If you don't get that, you don't really want to get involved in fixing...anything.

Again this grand experiment will fail horribly for one reason. It does absolutely nothing to help teach folks how to administer the costs of health care. It does nothing to remove the worthless and innane costs of the actual procedures etc.

Nuts and bolts before you start to play with throwing money please. If you don't get that, you don't really want to get involved in fixing...anything.


Versus the failed system we have now? The system that adds 40%+ in costs to every procedure performed that is covered by insurance...you mean keep that system? Don't look at the system that it is proven will save an immediate $400 Billion dollars of costs to American businesses and families? Don't look at or go to systems that are proven the world over to provide higher quality care at less cost per person than the current system in the US?

foXQbmZxWYY

Look, stop it. Your whole point was to try and make me look foolish for saying "I don't Know", don't try to paint it as something else.

I missed this earlier.

No. I may think you're foolish, but that wasn't my point until you went out of your way to act extra foolish (http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=170428&postcount=53).

My point is simply that I'm all for the experiment, if they aren't planning to strongarm all doctors into participating. I pay my doctor out of pocket, she doesn't accept insurance even if you have it, and we both like it that way.

I accept that I'm already paying for disadvantaged peoples' health care in a variety of indirect ways. So, if you want to make me pay for it directly, I guess I'm okay with that. If you want to screw up my own health care in the process, I'm not okay with that.

I really agree with Dr. Paul's view on malpractice.

My point is simply that I'm all for the experiment, if they aren't planning to strongarm all doctors into participating. I pay my doctor out of pocket, she doesn't accept insurance even if you have it, and we both like it that way.


Thats fine for a finger up your ass, or whatever small town Laura Ingels shit you have like bunions or whatever... but I think we both understand how that quickly becomes unfeasible if something bad happens to you.

I personally have the awesome insurance. So to be quite honest.. I don't give a fuck. But...

I personally think the only way for a public option that is passable in the United States to work is if we subsidize Insurance companies with health care and have them take uninsured people from a pool, much like they do with Auto insurance.

The government could run the health care pool, paying and monitoring the insurance companies, forcing costs down. Other measures would have to be taken to bring the price of health care down dramatically. My plan for that would be threefold.. creation of a national Health accreditation board which would promote and spread best practices, remove interstate boundries for health care, and enforce a high standard of care. The second part would be tort reform, capping damages and allowing hospitals and doctors to work without constant fear of lawsuit and debilitating insurance premiums. And finally I would add a 10% VAT on healthcare.

Oh yea.. Id also legalize pot and tax the living fuck out of it.

My point is simply that I'm all for the experiment, if they aren't planning to strongarm all doctors into participating. I pay my doctor out of pocket, she doesn't accept insurance even if you have it, and we both like it that way.

I accept that I'm already paying for disadvantaged peoples' health care in a variety of indirect ways. So, if you want to make me pay for it directly, I guess I'm okay with that. If you want to screw up my own health care in the process, I'm not okay with that.


These seem to be the two primary arguments folks keep throwing out, and yet every time I hear President Obama or one of the administration folks talking about his plan for health care, they seem to do everything they can to stress that you have nothing to worry about in these two areas. And yet, folks still want to sidetrack the discussion with the same arguments over and over.


Right now you have chocolate and vanilla ice cream, and not everyone can get some because it is overpriced and too many bureaucrats sitting in offices somewhere are deciding who gets to eat the ice cream. Now, someone is offering to add strawberry ice cream to the mix, providing a fresh choice; and, by having that additional choice the theory is that the cost may go down for all ice cream so that everyone may have some of the ice cream of their choice.

Oversimplified, definitely. But this is what I keep hearing from everyone but the folks who have been heavily financed by the health care industry. So I don't know why people insist on arguing about red herrings, rather than waiting to see exactly what the legislation includes. Unless it is for the mere sake of arguing, which surely nobody on these forums would want to do.

I missed this earlier.

No. I may think you're foolish, but that wasn't my point until you went out of your way to act extra foolish (http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=170428&postcount=53).

My point is simply that I'm all for the experiment, if they aren't planning to strongarm all doctors into participating. I pay my doctor out of pocket, she doesn't accept insurance even if you have it, and we both like it that way.

I accept that I'm already paying for disadvantaged peoples' health care in a variety of indirect ways. So, if you want to make me pay for it directly, I guess I'm okay with that. If you want to screw up my own health care in the process, I'm not okay with that.

I don't think any person who owns a business would think that being forced to participate in ANYTHING is good, whether you are getting paid for it or not. Seems you also missed where I posted that I too pay out of pocket for a doctors visit (Internist), my cost per visit after my 40% discount is $74.00 which I do not feel is unreasonable in the least.

Whats with the green ribbon? Help an ignorant person half way around the world out and explain the meaning if its not too much trouble, Rover.

Whats with the green ribbon? Help an ignorant person half way around the world out and explain the meaning if its not too much trouble, Rover.

Might be for the Iranians?

I asked Rover. Its his Avatar.

I pay my doctor out of pocket, she doesn't accept insurance even if you have it, and we both like it that way.

I hope you have some form of insurance. My grandfather had pretty poor insurance, was diagnosed with a heart problem, and couldn't ever get anything better for the rest of his life. He also couldn't buy life insurance and the bittersweet thing was he lived much longer than expected; he literally cost my mom and her family thousands upon thousands of dollars to keep alive. Only now, 28 years after he passed away, my mom has finished paying off all of that debt.

In 2007, 62% of all bankruptcy filled in this country is medical bill related. 20% higher than in 2001. 80% of these cases are people who do have insurance. If you don't have decent insurance, you're just extremely selfishly asking for a world of trouble.

I asked Rover. Its his Avatar.

Lummus, read the other gigantic active thread :) It's Iran related.

Been trying to avoid that one although I did post there.

Whats with the green ribbon? Help an ignorant person half way around the world out and explain the meaning if its not too much trouble, Rover.

It is my way of digital support for the Iranian protesters. I agree with you that we should keep our noses out of it but I am supportive of a people who have the balls to stand up and not take the crap dished out by a government.

I hope you have some form of insurance. My grandfather had pretty poor insurance, was diagnosed with a heart problem, and couldn't ever get anything better for the rest of his life. He also couldn't buy life insurance and the bittersweet thing was he lived much longer than expected; he literally cost my mom and her family thousands upon thousands of dollars to keep alive. Only now, 28 years after he passed away, my mom has finished paying off all of that debt.

In 2007, 62% of all bankruptcy filled in this country is medical bill related. 20% higher than in 2001. 80% of these cases are people who do have insurance. If you don't have decent insurance, you're just extremely selfishly asking for a world of trouble.

If you want to go for the "smug commenter" achievement, you ought to at least read the thread first. I have insurance. It's been discussed in this thread.

These seem to be the two primary arguments folks keep throwing out, and yet every time I hear President Obama or one of the administration folks talking about his plan for health care, they seem to do everything they can to stress that you have nothing to worry about in these two areas. And yet, folks still want to sidetrack the discussion with the same arguments over and over.


Right now you have chocolate and vanilla ice cream, and not everyone can get some because it is overpriced and too many bureaucrats sitting in offices somewhere are deciding who gets to eat the ice cream. Now, someone is offering to add strawberry ice cream to the mix, providing a fresh choice; and, by having that additional choice the theory is that the cost may go down for all ice cream so that everyone may have some of the ice cream of their choice.

Oversimplified, definitely. But this is what I keep hearing from everyone but the folks who have been heavily financed by the health care industry. So I don't know why people insist on arguing about red herrings, rather than waiting to see exactly what the legislation includes. Unless it is for the mere sake of arguing, which surely nobody on these forums would want to do.

You're stuck thinking in chocolate and vanilla when we've got Neapolitan here.

I'm not worried about keeping my private insurance. I'm worried about the government forcing my doctor to accept nationalized insurance (or insurance of any kind, for that matter).

Thats fine for a finger up your ass, or whatever small town Laura Ingels shit you have like bunions or whatever... but I think we both understand how that quickly becomes unfeasible if something bad happens to you.

So? That's why those doctors exist.

They specialize in taking care of minor, routine problems (often before they become major ones), and there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with just being a high school history teacher instead of being Jared Diamond.

If they don't want to deal with the red tape nightmare of accepting insurance, private or nationalized, they shouldn't be forced to.

Since anecdotes = data around here:

http://ayonae.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=423&stc=1&d=1245862524

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/ugly-health-care-waiting-_b_55749.html


A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada.
But, there's something else you probably don't hear about Canada. Substantial progress is being made.
Most of the wait times problems derive from funding cuts by conservative national or provincial governments, or from the siphoning off of resources by private providers. But precisely because the Canadian system is publicly administered, Canadians are able to force their elected officials to fix problems, or get voted out of office.



Cheers,

I waited in a room for like 45 minutes to get blood drawn once. In America! At a private doctor! Who didn't take insurance!


I'm not worried about keeping my private insurance. I'm worried about the government forcing my doctor to accept nationalized insurance (or insurance of any kind, for that matter).

Even if doing so reduced the cost of all your healthcare by half without forcing the doctor to make up the loss?

Anywhere I'm paying cash for office visits or tests, I've never had to wait more than 5-10 minutes to get started. Those places certainly don't operate on a first-come, first-serve basis either.

Even if doing so reduced the cost of all your healthcare by half without forcing the doctor to make up the loss?

If the proposed system is all rainbows and puppy dogs, then they won't have to force it onto people. If the government can provide a system better and cheaper than anything else in operation currently, they shouldn't be afraid of competing with private insurance and/or cash-only practices.

You'll have to excuse my skepticism that the morons running our government (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1945316120090619?rpc=77) can possibly deliver on those promises though.

Anywhere I'm paying cash for office visits or tests, I've never had to wait more than 5-10 minutes to get started. Those places certainly don't operate on a first-come, first-serve basis either.

Yes, but anecotes are data and statistical analysis is apparently irrelevant.



If the proposed system is all rainbows and puppy dogs, then they won't have to force it onto people. If the government can provide a system better and cheaper than anything else in operation currently, they shouldn't be afraid of competing with private insurance and/or cash-only practices.


They aren't afraid of competing with private entities. Private entities know that any accountable system will pull the plug on grand theft medical and that's why they've been aggressively buying out representatives since Nixon gave them the tacit go-ahead. In every other Western nation, the government has managed to provide systems comparable or better than private insurers (the Dutch system in particular is a good model since both exist side by side). Just look at the how the various congressional puppets are attacking measuring the effectiveness of care against its costs. You'd think that bill included the public execution of puppies.

If you're going to keep trying to paint this as an effective private health system versus a public one, first you have to demonstrate that the private health system is at all effective. (hint: when we're paying nearly 2x per capita for comparable or worse care, you've got an uphill walk). We are somewhat fortunate that we were the richest nation on earth, because no one else could have dreamed of affording this clusterfuck.

It's odd that several people, including you, have been trying to pigeonhole me as a staunch supporter of the current private system and an opponent of a public system. Do my comments on this thread really imply that?

My only commitment so far is that I'd be fine with them trying the nationalized experiment as long as it doesn't force my doctor to accept insurance and as long as it has a sunset on it. I wouldn't want us stuck with it as something too politically toxic to suggest repealing if it sucks, ala Bush's politically popular, but economically stupid changes to social security.

I think they should implement something competitive if they can. If it's better, I might consider it. If it's less red tape and hassle for doctors (should be easy, compared to now), they'll embrace it too.

That's how it should work, not some strongarmed, government-knows-best nonsense.

Yes, they do imply that. You have an implicit and often stated assumption, not borne out by evidence from our own Medicare programs or those in other post-industrial nations, that a public system must mean huge inefficiency.

Healthcare is always going to be a net loss. The question is, how do we best mitigate the costs, and we have lived through what the answer is most definitely not. Some doctors may have to bite down and accept public insurance; it's not the best of all possibilities but it sure beats the rest of the country forced into unsustainable spending only made possible by the debt-fueled economy we know you love you so much.

Yes, they do imply that. You have an implicit and often stated assumption, not borne out by evidence from our own Medicare programs or those in other post-industrial nations, that a public system must mean huge inefficiency.

What are you assuming my assumption is? I don't understand your implication.

http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=170747&postcount=93 ?

Either you have an assumption about the future efficiency of any public health plan, or that US citizen, at least Californians, are qualitatively more moronic than those in Japan, Holland, England, Canada, and Germany.

US government inefficiency is not an assumption.

So why does Medicare beat out most, if not all, private plans in terms of overall money used for care provided, even with twenty years of attempted neocon sabotage? And if it is in fact so inefficient, why are private providers mortally terrified of an equivalent program being their competition?

Hard to compare them on that measure since one is publicly funded and the other is a for-profit industry.

Again, it's weird how you're trying to get me to take up and defend a position that I don't hold.

You can argue against it sideways like this,

US government inefficiency is not an assumption.


But presenting a different system as being somehow less efficient, and therefore undesirable, than what it would be supplanting is doing a very good job of defending a position whether or not you're in it. Academic discussions about the merits or pitfalls of all this are all fine and good, but in the actual world this policy debates occurs in, none of these statements exist in a vacuum.

So, are you suggesting that the US government is efficient? How long till doctors start billing the national insurance for $100,000 toilet seats and $50,000 hammers? :rolleyes:

As you probably know, they already do this with medicare. Medicare fraud has been a very lucrative business for some time now.

Regardless, I see no problem with introducing competition to the market. If the government, with all its inefficiency, is still competitive against the massive profit margins of private insurance, we win. In case it isn't, put a sunset on the thing so that we're not stuck with something that sucks but is political suicide to repeal.

I think I've been extremely clear about my pro-health-care-experiment stance at this point. I'm not going to be your GOP Huckleberry!

As you probably know, they already do this with medicare. Medicare fraud has been a very lucrative business for some time now.


What makes you think there's necessarily more welfare fraud than general insurance fraud?

Where did I say there is?

All the direct comparisons you guys keep trying to draw between singular aspects of private, for-profit insurance and a publicly funded option are not apt.

The government is fully capable of running an efficient department.

It is all in design.

See, the problem with Health Care is that it is an Inelastic market. It is pretty well insulated from supply and demand in many respects. Cancer doesnt care if there is a demand and a traffic accident could give a shit about the supply of type O+ on the shelf.

The in elasticity of the market allows it to cost shift. As such, the rates for health care is sky rocketing.
As illustrated here:http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0612/0612.costshift_chart1.gif

Medicare and Medicaid are facts that must be dealt with.

The government cannot afford to pay more for Medicare and Medicaid. It simply cannot. Boomers have assfucked the system. So the government has to keep its costs artifically low... and as more Boomers enter the system, government MUST drive down costs even more.

So as the market is inelastic, the hospitals cost shift the difference to private insurers. One group in this type of market can be made to pay significantly more than another group for THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT. And there is nothing they can do about it. Wheres your Free Market now?

Well.. because costs are rising, the insurance companies must protect their own margins. Price goes up.. as a result you have the following:
http://healthcarevoices.org/page/-/HealthCare/2009%2003%2017%20Graph.jpg

So, insurance prices go up.. benefits are cut.. people can no longer shop for their own health care because it is cost prohibitative... or afford COBRA if they lose their job.. welcome to:
http://www.newamerica.net/blog/files/uncompensated_care.JPG

So in the end, Obama is exactly correct.. we NEED, as in we have no choice, but to try to come up with a plan that dramatically lowers the cost of health care across the board for all parties. A public plan can do that. With hospitals no longer able to cost shift, prices will equalize.

This is what needs our attention, and how to make it smaller. Come up with a better plan please.
http://www.ahipbelieves.com/images/health_care_costs.jpg

The government is fully capable of running an efficient department.

It is all in design.

See, the problem with Health Care is that it is an Inelastic market. It is pretty well insulated from supply and demand in many respects. Cancer doesnt care if there is a demand and a traffic accident could give a shit about the supply of type O+ on the shelf.

The in elasticity of the market allows it to cost shift. As such, the rates for health care is sky rocketing.
As illustrated here:

Medicare and Medicaid are facts that must be dealt with.

The government cannot afford to pay more for Medicare and Medicaid. It simply cannot. Boomers have assfucked the system. So the government has to keep its costs artifically low... and as more Boomers enter the system, government MUST drive down costs even more.

So as the market is inelastic, the hospitals cost shift the difference to private insurers. One group in this type of market can be made to pay significantly more than another group for THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT. And there is nothing they can do about it. Wheres your Free Market now?

Uh, wait.

You just showed a graph of how medicare and medicaid are not covering Washington's hospitals' costs, causing them to shift it to the private insured patients.

How is that somehow a positive for nationalized health care? Your data shows that without private health care to subsidize it, the government plans wouldn't be able to cover the costs of the care they provide.

All that does for me is cast suspicion on Malse's claims that Medicare is more efficient than the private options. Apparently, they are only efficient if subsidized by privately insured patients.

As far as health care being inelastic, dream on. Health care has been and will always be somewhat plutocratic. Are you trying to suggest that if I need a new liver under Obama-land that I'll get it as easily as Steve Jobs just did?

Yes San.

Medicare and Medicaid.

Think about those two things for a moment. They MUST exist. No private insurer could or would do what those two entities do. It would make every one of our private insurances unaffordable. It would be like giving a car to every drunk on the street and then making the auto insurance companies cover them fully for a low price.

Go into a hospital..(except a childrens hospital, duh) and you find it loaded with one thing... Old people. Packed to gills with people over 70. People in the last few years of their life getting the most expensive treatments imaginable.

From an adjusters standpoint.. it makes zero fucking sense. "Why they HELL should we spend massive amounts of cash for a procedure for Mrs. McGillicutty.. she is 87 fucking years old..."

If we were robotic, we would just euthanize old people once the decline of health set in.. shit, after that healthcare would be cheap as fuck.

The government has to do medicare because no private company could.. Old people use a massive amount of the resources... how else could you handle the costs of their care? Doctors are going to provide the best possible care to every single patient, regardless of age... thats what we WANT doctors to do.

But the facts are the facts San.. Government provides healthcare for old people because it is something ONLY the government could do, but now the chickens have come to roost and we see the flaws not in a public health care system, but in the one we have and the fact that the reality of it is unsustainable.

(sorry for size)

http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/demographic%20change_health%20care%20costs%20per%2 0country_96dpi_1.jpg

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/healthcare/20050111b_2.gif

get the delicious irony? Old people are killing US! har har.

IF we could just kill everyone on their 80th birthday.. PROBLEM Solved.
But that isnt reality. Reality is that because of our health care situation more and more people are living longer and longer.

All that does for me is cast suspicion on Malse's claims that Medicare is more efficient than the private options. Apparently, they are only efficient if subsidized by privately insured patients.

As far as health care being inelastic, dream on. Health care has been and will always be somewhat plutocratic. Are you trying to suggest that if I need a new liver under Obama-land that I'll get it as easily as Steve Jobs just did?

We're talking about different things. If you'll notice, a large proportion of the population with the highest health care needs can not afford or acquire private insurances and is defaulted into Medicare. Whatever system those individuals were covered by would look like the worst option because they're a big part of the cost and none of the payment.

That's also merely addressing total costs, not what I was talking about, which is how much money it takes to get money out. Medicare was running at around approximately 85 cents out for every dollar in, while most private insurers, thanks to profit motives and huge administrative overhead (read, more profit motive), were averaging ~62. I don't have a cite for that on hand unfortunately but I'll see if I can dig up the paper.

edit: I did want to note, speaking of profit motives, look at the marginal returns at HMOs. Some of them are making upwards of 20% profit. Keep in mind that evil, destructive oil companies are making a measly 7-9% in good years. You know who else is getting >20% margins? Investment banks and drug cartels.

I didnt see a thread about the recent health care debate or Obama's proposal so I thought I would start one.

There are several issues that need to be addressed. Walmart employs many people at minimum wage. They work just below the minimum number of hours to be considered full time. These people have no company sponsored health care. They are all indigents of the state. The amount of money that the states pay for the health costs is skyhigh. All of the arguments about our taxes will go up because of Obama's plan is ironic, considering we already pay through the nose for all these uninsured people. My solution is to raise the minimum wage for employees that companies chose not to insure. Keep the minimum wage the same for employeese that are insured.

Second problem is that health care costs are skyrocketing. My co pay went from 20$ to 30$ recently. 50% increase all in one shot? Across the board for all people? How is that justified? We must identify where all this increase in cost is coming from. There are lots of reasons for costs to go up and unfortunately most of them are due to efforts to increase profit at all stages in the chain, from doctors, insurers, labs, pharma, etc.

The only companies that can increase their price without repercussions are monopolies, or companies that lack meaningful competition. The health care insurance industry lacks meaningful competition which encourages price fixing, much like gas stations where the only competition is to see who can post the higher price last.

I dont believe Obama's plan is the right way, but we definately need to fix this problem, because most small business owners are having a hard time staying in business with this burden.

A health care executive speaks out.

Mv1FwOCNoZ8

Word!

most commonly confused with reality. I.E. health of the individual is secondary to corporation profit margins.

This is a BRILLIANT look at the democratic health care plan.. Pure genius.


http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

Perhaps the GOP will become relevant again when they start basing their criticisms in reality.

Any news on the Birther front Osg?

Listening to Biden speak today, I'm starting to see how its possible to expand healthcare while not increasing taxes or the deficit. If we pay $600 billion a year for uninsured people and their hospital visits alone, and its cheaper to do proactive preventive care than pay for emergency care for everyone else, there is money to be saved when everyone is covered and preventive care is government covered. Hell, just a change of nutrition in elementary schools probably has an astronomical cost savings over the life of every child for them not growing up obese. Drug companies benefit because they get that extra 30% sales from all the previously uninsured or underinsured now buying their drugs and in capitalistic fashion higher supply and lower emergency demand lowers costs.
It makes sense, my only fears would rely in execution (see No Child Left Behind, for example)

RSM8t_cLZgk


And of course...

v_2gFsEHRRU

My problem with government run healthcare isn't the taxpayer cost. It's the fraud and waste that will inevitably follow. Our government sucks ass when it comes to large scale things like this.

Stopping fraud isnt that hard to do.

From what Ive read every dollar spent on fraud prevention stops 10 dollars of actual fraud. Its just that so little of the budget actually goes to it. Obama has included a fraud prevention aspect that dramatically raises the amount spent on fraud prevention, and has estimated that will save 2-3 billion a year.

My problem with government run healthcare isn't the taxpayer cost. It's the fraud and waste that will inevitably follow. Our government sucks ass when it comes to large scale things like this.

It's a legitimate concern, but we have little information about fraud with private insurers -- we do have a lot about waste though, and they're even worse, particularly with effectively cosmetic treatments. I think, that with more eyes on the problem, this will still be a net win.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/medical.mistake.military.2.1091010.html

I will never go to Travis AFB again even though they are only an hour away.

^^ that is awful :(

I had a gall bladder surgery done while in AIT at Ft. Gordon, I continued to have abdominal pain for several months so at Ft. Stewart they decided to take my appendix too...when they opened me up they found several of surgical clips floating around my right side. So yeah I don't have much love for young Army surgeons either. But that is some crazy stuff that happened to that Airman. I can't even imagine :(

I just got back from my grandparents house. They are turning 80. They were foaming at the mouth about this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/18/754937/-Health-Care-H.R.-3200-Section1233:-Euthanasia

You mean old people should talk to their doctor about their end of life care wishes? (more often than every 5 years) OMFG OH NOES!

While I appreciate that reform of some sort is absolutely necessary (Medicare/Medicaid alone will bankrupt us at this rate) I can't help but think they won't get anything off the ground anymore. These "town hall" circuses filled with people yelling about stuff they don't even come close to grasping is just spiraling in a PR nightmare for the congressional democrats and the White House; I don't see how they can succeed.

Edjamucation would be the key. However, you can't force people to learn....

Maybe they should start sponsoring American Idol? Then people would have no choice but to learn....

The Status Quo is not working. I'll give this reform credit for at least getting people talking about it and stirring up a lot of thought.

My father is one of those foaming at the mouth over this for no other reason than he doesn't understand it. Hes so worried something is going to happen to his medicare ...could care less if you or I have it when we are his age. He thinks some how some way, hes going to loose something with medicare.

I don't see anything getting passed either. At this point I am losing interest in it as well. The wife and I both have incredible health care, however we supported some form of reform to make life easier for people, many of my family members includded. When all was said and done, I was arguing with my brothers over this...who have no issurance, and have no clue..about why this reform is needed. Then I came to the realization...hey I have over 1 million dollars of health insurance as does my wife..we with almost zero out of pocket..they have nothing. Good luck to them...screw any reform.

The Status Quo is not working. I'll give this reform credit for at least getting people talking about it and stirring up a lot of thought.

My father is one of those foaming at the mouth over this for no other reason than he doesn't understand it. Hes so worried something is going to happen to his medicare ...could care less if you or I have it when we are his age. He thinks some how some way, hes going to loose something with medicare.

I don't see anything getting passed either. At this point I am losing interest in it as well. The wife and I both have incredible health care, however we supported some form of reform to make life easier for people, many of my family members includded. When all was said and done, I was arguing with my brothers over this...who have no issurance, and have no clue..about why this reform is needed. Then I came to the realization...hey I have over 1 million dollars of health insurance as does my wife..we with almost zero out of pocket..they have nothing. Good luck to them...screw any reform.


This is why education is important, I mean education on health care reform. There is that very vocal minority who run around shouting and drowning out substantive discussion.

Yesterday I was grocery shopping and I ran into someone who was all up in arms about the death panels and labor camps that Obama is supposedly building, they quoted Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin.

This morning Dylan Ratigan had as a guest the guy who disrupted the town hall that Arlen Specter was having and it became blatantly obvious that this guy had "0" understanding of what he was pissed about and at the end he kept repeating tort reform...tort reform. I bet he has no idea what tort is.

Then there are things like this:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” Investors Business Dail (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/the-market-value-of-a-life.php)y

Failing to realize that Hawking is British and kept alive and functioning with national health care.

My rep. Rick Larsen (D) is having a town hall meeting tonight at 5pm PST. they have actually moved it from the original venue to the local baseball stadium. home of the Aquasox, best baseball name going! but i digress.
I'll be in attendance and hopefully get a chance to speak. if not it will be interesting to see this ignor...errr spirited debate firsthand.

Not that it validates the fearmongering, but surely everyone understands that Hawking has received preferential treatment. He would in any country, under any system.

Using him as an example of how good the system is makes no more sense than suggesting he would've been left for dead under it.

Not that it validates the fearmongering, but surely everyone understands that Hawking has received preferential treatment. He would in any country, under any system.

Using him as an example of how good the system is makes no more sense than suggesting he would've been left for dead under it.


The point was not whether the system was good or not, it was to show how idiotic and uninformed the argument against it is.

I think Halo could answer whether or not he's recieved preferential treatment. He has ALS really an untreatable disease and I couldn't see people standing for their family members dying of ALS while someone is given preferential treatment.

Hawking has received preferential treatment

Medically in terms of doctor visits, drug plans, health insurance, etc I doubt it. A universal health care program does not deviate from the bureaucratic process in this regard.

Being the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge I am sure has helped him to acquire technology (chair, speech synth, software, etc) that most everyday people would not have ready access to. So yes, in a way he has received preferential treatment.

It helps when your peers are leaders in every imaginable field of learning.

I am sure Halo can shed some light for us.



Cheers,

The point is that it really doesn't matter what system he's in, he's going to have his needs covered by someone. If he were here, private insurance would probably suck for him, but some University(ies) or private foundation would pay to keep him going. Talking about him and any health care system in the same breath is nonsense.

Same with our Congress members too, for that matter. Anyone who thinks they really get the same level of care that any Federal employee gets is delusional.

I'm pretty sure our Congress gets their health care plans through OPM, they have the same options as their staff and all DC based government employees.

Yes, that's a point of theirs that they're always harping on, hence my mentioning it. You can't possibly believe that the real care they receive is the same as any DC based government employee though.

Why not? My roommate gets exceptional care. He's been hospitalized at George Washington University Hospital numerous times, has a cardiologist over at Georgetown, takes a lot of medication all covered without personal expense to him and he had more pre-existing conditions than anyone I could ever think of before he joined the FBI - yet had no problem getting his choice of doctors in the DC area.

Yes, they COULD pay for extra coverage but they hardly need to with what they get. Government beaurocracy being what it is there is absolutely no possible way they created a plan for the 1000ish members of the House and Senate, Chiefs of Staff and Cabinet Members and kept it quiet this long, nevermind the fact that it'd be a waste since the best perk of a government job is the benefits (the pay sucks after all).

A secret plan? It's no secret that a senator is going to be treated preferentially to your roommate, even if they're technically on the exact same plan.

It is extremely naive to think otherwise. I'm not even saying there's anything "wrong" with it. That's life. It needs to be taken into account when people make claims about how Ted Kennedy is getting stellar care and we can get the same if only Obamacare passes.

Senators and Congressmen get the same plan that the people who clean their offices have.

They benefit from the massive pool of federal employees. It gives them alot of leverage.

The New York Times on Sunday examined how, when senators discuss health care reform, they"usually speak in abstract terms about soaring health costs and theplight of the uninsured," problems from which "members of Congress areusually insulated." According to the Times, senators have access to a number of health insurance options through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program,and they "are not normally exposed to the fears that strike manyworkers as employers reduce health benefits and insurers increasepremiums year after year."

http://www.opm.gov/insure/index.aspx

I guess according to Sanchek, there is a sekret plan. If a Congresscritter gets sick, they fly out to Area 51 where aliens from a more advanced civilization, that crashed here in the 50s, give them super techno care.

What's with you guys and all the conspiracy theory about secret plans?

Does anyone honestly believe a Senator or Rep is treated the same as anyone else, in any setting? Even the state representatives I know here are treated like minor royalty.

You have to be naive beyond belief to think that they're really getting the same level of care as anyone else on that plan.

I'm sure they're treated the EXACT same manner in regards to health INSURANCE, which is what is being discussed and legislated. Both Senator Kennedy and Joe Shmoe pay the same premiums and the same deductibles for the same COVERAGE which is unrelated to quality of care. All government employees are entitled to pick their doctors and the care they feel is best (provided they pick the appropriate plans, some obviously limit doctor choices and such but cost less as will any corporate insurance options). You talking about the level of care is just Palinesq blabber and not up to OPM, its up to the individual who purchases the plan and ... you know, makes the choices.

Does anyone honestly believe a Senator or Rep is treated the same as anyone else, in any setting? Even the state representatives I know here are treated like minor royalty.

really? No shit.. you sit in the doctors office with them and observe the care they receive? Are you a stalker.. following around politcos, hiding in their bushes.. seething with jealousy.

People know their politicans.. many might even be personal friends with their physicians. In fact many probably are. Its the nature of being someone with a high profile and liked enough to be elected by a majority of voters.

Guess who else gets "extra bonus care"... people who are related to the doctor.. people who play golf with the doctor... The friends of the doctors wife.. the doctors lawyer.. the lady who cuts the doctors dogs hair... the doctors accountant.. friends and family of the people working in the doctors office.

Do you ever.. you know.. get outside and interact with humans?

When Ted Kennedy tries to use his stellar care as a selling point for that insurance plan, it certainly is relevant. Not a single person on this board could get the level of care he's getting, whether Obamacare, private insurance, or by any other means.

really? No shit.. you sit in the doctors office with them and observe the care they receive? Are you a stalker.. following around politcos, hiding in their bushes.. seething with jealousy.

People know their politicans.. many might even be personal friends with their physicians. In fact many probably are. Its the nature of being someone with a high profile and liked enough to be elected by a majority of voters.

Guess who else gets "extra bonus care"... people who are related to the doctor.. people who play golf with the doctor... The friends of the doctors wife.. the doctors lawyer.. the lady who cuts the doctors dogs hair... the doctors accountant.. friends and family of the people working in the doctors office.

Do you ever.. you know.. get outside and interact with humans?

Uh, yeah... My point? Thanks, I think.

You dont have a point.

You tried to argue that the Senators and Congressmens health plan is inherantly better.

You failed.. Its not.

All you have shown is that sometimes when you know the person who is doing a service for you, you sometimes get better service. THANKS FOR THE UPDATE JEAN PAUL SARTE

Hey San.. Im going to use your failed logic.

In Sanchek World... I know my mechanic pretty well and have a personal relationship with him. Because of that I get great service and good prices on work
(applies magic Sanchek dust)
Ergo... My car insurance is better than other peoples..

/head explodes

This is so weird. Where are you guys getting this "sekret plan" nonsense?

Your analogy would be correct if I then went on to speak about how good my car insurance was, even though it was my mechanic buddy that was really helping me out. That would be patently disingenuous.

Professor Hawking lives in England, where he has been treated by their National Health Service. And by his own account, it saved his life.

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."


So Hawking has answered...seems like there was the same treatment anyone in England would get.

Duh.. they dont have the Sekret Area 51 Aliens

So Hawking has answered...seems like there was the same treatment anyone in England would get.

Welcome to a dozen posts ago.

The point is that it really doesn't matter what system he's in, he's going to have his needs covered by someone. If he were here, private insurance would probably suck for him, but some University(ies) or private foundation would pay to keep him going. Talking about him and any health care system in the same breath is nonsense.

Same with our Congress members too, for that matter. Anyone who thinks they really get the same level of care that any Federal employee gets is delusional.

Sorry, most of the Federal employee's have a much worse health care plan than the private sector. I was paying 500 bucks a month for insurance that covered...jack and shit.

Stuck with military medicine here. Its not great, but it is a whole lot better than nothing at all. In some ways it's better but as a whole its on par with your typical HMO. The system typically is not over burdened because as a whole, military members tend to be healthy. That might shed light on another problem at the root of it all.

Americans tend to live unhealthy lives. We are over weight, don't sleep enough etc, don't exercise nearly enough. Part of health care in general is the preventative maintenance side and there we fail. There are lots of cause to point fingers towards that are revenue builders to pay for this. Candy bars, fast food, pop, booze, smokes, coffee, energy drinks heck anything with a certain % of calories derived from fat or high fructose corn syrup or addictive mind altering substances...deserves some subtle taxation. Not saying tax the crap out of it, because the burden of obesity still lies at the feet of those who choose to live off of McDonalds. Still some of the instruments of how we got to this point deserve to carry the burden of paying for the end results.

I can understand that the Republican side of the house wants some other solution removed from the government providing managed health care and leave it to the private sector and individual responsibility. AKA: The current status quo. Granted this is a very Darwinian approach and in an era of rampant over population, an argument could be made if you can't afford your own care, then you deserve to die or at least not procreate. The US has some of the best health care options on the planet...if you can afford it. Chances are you will still get that care, but end up under an insurmountable pile of debt for life where you might be left thinking it would have been less hardship for my family if I had just been left to die. Really, we need to just STFU on Human Rights issue towards other nations if that is how we roll. There is plenty of room for improvement by bringing the costs down which might make the tab to the taxpayer/patient a lot less of a bitter pill. No more frivolous lawsuits. Cheaper drugs. Advanced tech. There is almost 400 million people in the USA and EVERY one of us is going to be given some form of care. Is there not a way to make the system profitable? If not, find some alliances with other nations. If one country alone can't figure it out, perhaps several can.

Democrats want everyone covered in some way, perhaps even to create less burdens on the system in the event a family or individual who is barely making ends meet as some subsistence wage service sector job gets hit with 6 plus figure medical bills and has to then file personal bankruptcy, go on welfare or ends up in the street because they can't make the payments. Perfectly reasonable. There is probably some accounting that might show that some money spent on providing some basic affordable care could prevent a family from suckling the government tit for even more money. Unless we bring back debtor's prisons or force people to work hard labor until the debt is paid or better yet....just let them die euthanasia style, then yes the country as a whole shares some responsibility for their care. Like it or not, you are going to pay for it anyway. Be it through welfare, corrections, foster care etc. If you get people in a position to where they end up desperate, then the costs surface to address the aftermath.

Its hard to grasp as to why in one of the richest nations on the planet with some of the most focused and brilliant minds that we can't come up with some kind of middle ground between pure Darwinian and Socialism? Granted, the squabbles on this board are a good litmus as to why. People get wrapped around petty bullshit and the concept of a "Big Picture" has been almost completely forgotten. The costs need to come down and then it has to be paid for. It might be easier to just figure out how to fund it now at its current over-priced status and then bring costs down from there to assure lasting success. Then it should be a no-brainer.

Yes Lums but as usual the Democrats want change, they don't care how and don't care who pays for it.

The focus needs to be on the costs and red tape of the medical insurance world before they even think of mucking with covering everyone.

Just stupid as hell to try and pull that shit...imho.

Gosh...I wonder who pays for the current health care system?

If you put an internal body organ of limited use, such as a tonsil,or appendix under you pillow, the Health Care Fairy grants you a Health Insurance Policy.

Rover. You are pretty involved in the business world so you know how health care is paid for. Through some form of collective bargaining leveraged either through HMOs or Insurance which require you to pay into the system a monthly dues that goes into the kitty even if you never use the service. Now I know you were just being a wise ass but still.

Correct me if I am wrong but the costs have been driven up due to mostly

A) Costs of administering what has become a huge, bloated bureacratic nightmare and all the fraud, waste and abuse that goes with it.
B) Costs stemming from lawsuits and associated insurance as a result.
C) Costs of drugs.
D) And of course the costs of a population that puts itself at risk and overburdens the system by being fat slobs. Add the fact of the Baby Boomers who are about to massively flood the system with geriatrics.

The point is that the general public is paying for the system either way and what keeps getting lost in the noise is that even if you end up paying a bit for someone else, it's a still a net win if the overall cost goes down because of it.

I'm fortunate enough to only have to pay about 5% of my healthcare out of pocket, but it's stupid to ignore than there is like 15% of my nominal salary that I'm not getting that gets sucked into a black hole of private insurers to make that happen. It's mathematically impossible my taxes can go up by that much given I'm already in a 33% marginal bracket.

They have to come up with a way to create a strong central negotiator on behalf of the patient.

The insurance companies have power, but their interests do not align with the patients. People don't want the government to do it because the government is scary.

Maybe they should hire Bill Shatner...

This is what I know about the health care system we currently have.

I own a business, in Pennsylvania a business owner IE self employed cannot be denied coverage. However, due to a pre-existing condition my coverage cost would be $4500.00 per month, that is $54000.00 per year. So I self pay. By self paying I get a 30-40% discount off of my bill depending on the procedure done.

I have a very good friend of mine who owns a company with around 100 full time employees, his contribution to their healthcare exceeds $600,000.00 per year and his best plan he offers them is a $2500.00 deductible. He told me that his employees are successfully denied coverage on about 12% of their needs. I would imagine that he could do some nice upgrades to his production lines with an extra $600,000.00 a year.

Squish's mom is 74 and was diagnosed with lung cancer back in May, she has medicare with supplement plan B, in effect she has government healthcare. She pays around $250.00 per month and has not once been denied coverage for any procedure the doctors have chosen to do. She has no "death panel" to beg to, no one has interfered with her care, it has been between her doctors and her. Her cancer has shrunk due to the aggressive treatment they have her on.

The current system is more than just broken, it is a wreck. It is immoral. Healthcare managed by fortune 50 companies has done nothing but make a few CEO's very wealthy, it is responsible for many many patients receiving sub-standard or in many cases no care at all. For the life of me I just cannot grasp what level of intelligence one has to get below to not have any understanding of what it is doing to our country. It is almost singly responsible for American business's inability to compete on a global basis. It takes money from not only the workers but from the business owners who would otherwise likely invest it back into their business.

One can sit in judgment and say "The democrats always propose things with no way to pay for it" that type of thinking is what brought us the Bush presidency, the war in Iraq, the collapse of Wall street. The republicans have done a bang up job of proposing and implementing things with no way to pay for it, just look...we are the tops in citizens in prison and no where near even the top 10 in providing quality health care for our citizens, nor in education.

Spending on education, healthcare, nutritional programs, hospitals, alternative energy etc are an investment in the future of this country...it takes money to make money, really it's cut and dry. Spending on huge weapons systems, oil drilling, etc is nothing but throwing money at something for no other reason than it is the status quo.

First off, there are many things that should not be "for profit". The commodity that is the life blood of our economy (oil) and health care are the two I care about. Second, human greed always trumps good intentions.

As I said before the main problem with health care today is the severe lack of meaningful competition. Just to get it out there, I do not believe Obama's plan is the correct way to address the problem. I have heard several good plans to address our problem. Lets look at auto insurance as a great example of how health care should be. You premiums are based on your individual risk factors. There is no reason why my premium should be the same as the fat slob who smokes just because we work at the same company and we are in the same insurance pool. Auto insurance is very competitive. I can go to progressive.com and shop for the best price. This setup with large company sponsored pools isnt good for the end user.

Another thing I heard was that the insurance industry in general is exempt from the federal anti trust regulations. Anyone care to comment on that? I fail to see how that can be anything but really bad for consumers.

My boss is a retired wo3 from the army. His only insurance is VA. He loves it. He is your typical pro military republican, and he thinks everyone should have VA.

There are many ways to inject some competitiveness into the health insurance industry, to reduce their profits from monopoly levels down to capitalist levels. I dont think a government clearing house is the way to go.

Yes Lums but as usual the Democrats want change, they don't care how and don't care who pays for it.

The focus needs to be on the costs and red tape of the medical insurance world before they even think of mucking with covering everyone.

Just stupid as hell to try and pull that shit...imho.

The point is that the general public is paying for the system either way and what keeps getting lost in the noise is that even if you end up paying a bit for someone else, it's a still a net win if the overall cost goes down because of it.

I'm fortunate enough to only have to pay about 5% of my healthcare out of pocket, but it's stupid to ignore than there is like 15% of my nominal salary that I'm not getting that gets sucked into a black hole of private insurers to make that happen. It's mathematically impossible my taxes can go up by that much given I'm already in a 33% marginal bracket.

Fandros, meet Malse.

I think the inevitable problem is that the cost of that Medicare / Medicaid that Squish's mom (and a huge portion of our country) are enjoying is just ending up costing more and more each year. Considerably more. Either we stop having Medicare / Medicaid OR we change the system - those are the only two options out there.

At Cardin's town hall the other day in Gaithersburg, a very angry person shouted, "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" and absolutely refused to listen to the dramatic reality that government runs Medicare ... which leads me to believe there really are two sides to this debate: those who want change to the system, and those who are too dumb to realize they want change to the system.

Well said Kelraz.

I got this yesterday evening. Posting here for relevance. Sorry formatting looks flooky.

Some interesting points here though especially the lower part where myths and truths are covered. I caught on BBC yesterday some commentary about how some in our country are comparing Obama's plan to the NHS in GB and how the NHS wanted to end Stephen Hawking's life, or some such. He since debunked that with a statement. The amount of misinformation is astouding, and I don't even know what to believe anymore. I also heard a piece on Americans who are hired to protest opposing Obama at the town hall meetings he's going to.




Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck (http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/?e=11&ref=text0) this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/email/email_reality_check.jpg (http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/71/?e=11)

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/?e=11&ref=hicp)

8 common myths about health insurance reform

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck (http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/?e=11&ref=myth1)
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq/?e=11&ref=myth1)

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html)
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html)
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html)
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes/)
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline/)
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/)
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html)
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf?e=11&ref=report)

If that is a real email from David Axelrod, the man should be banned from ever engaging in any form of debate of any substantive issue ever again. He goes to all the trouble to list the myths then answers each one with "Nuu-ugh".

Those "8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage" dig much too deeply into the choice of the insurance companies. They will soon be out of business or so specialized in niche markets that the only option for most people will be the government plan.

One last thing about the email the use of the term "discriminated" in this context is an insult to every minority that was ever truly discriminated against. If an insurance company doesn't choose to do business with any individual because their exposure to loss is too great that is their choice. Those choices are made by people who want to make money, insurance is a business not welfare. I can't drive a BMW because I can't afford it why should someone at BMW be able to tell me I have to buy their car.

Which my friend you just pointed out exactly why something needs to change with how we do health care in this country. Sorry my life isn't a car, I shouldn't have to worry about if I am a liability to mr rich insurance company...nor should anyone else.

Especially when you think of what happens to car insurance when you need it - say, after an accident. Take that model too far and your health insurance doubles the first time you see a doctor for a wart on your finger.

The greatest concern for me in all of this is the mass amount of ignorance being tossed around, especially intentionally by some politicians. The town halls are embarrassing.

If that is a real email from David Axelrod.....


I can't say how real but I can show you headers:

Return-Path: info114@service.govdelivery.com
Received: from imta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (LHLO
IMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.30.21) by
sz0093.wc.mail.comcast.net with LMTP; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:17:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from service.govdelivery.com ([208.42.190.242])
by IMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id Ty7T1c01a5EEPds01yHsPU; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:17:53 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=uFsxnXtSAAAA:8 a=7G-Imv_WAAAA:8
a=C_IRinGWAAAA:8 a=aJ6wR8QW9LqVTMiMdOsA:9 a=vCsRMziu2O0HPhwCFAkA:7
a=9tUVS0ct3Pa9mpeqfKBI4vBixSMA:4 a=a55xtiohHbYA:10 a=sGSF-FSReu8A:10
a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=sh6PArqQtYdngLzxv5aEQJAsMbE=:19 a=juSFkyx0TeOkdwcI:21
a=0U-a2gWjFD8Hoi4G:21 a=yxO3Op9WAAAA:8 a=GxfkPYqcXUAc3xIMPtcA:9
a=LctsrK81E30QTy1860YA:7 a=GHnshc5JlnLN_OR_PZQfIqbsTDMA:4
a=IikE7sQXiaPwR8ZA:21 a=jNcKFH93REtrDziQ:21
Received: from service.govdelivery.com ([10.10.20.242])
by service.govdelivery.com (StrongMail Enterprise 4.1.1.4(4.1.1.4-47689)); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:10:40 -0500
X-VirtualServer: Default, service.govdelivery.com, 0.0.0.0
X-VirtualServerGroup: Default
X-MailingID: 1215539638::547307::1001::PRD-BUL-547307::<myemail>::1258859
X-SMHeaderMap: mid="X-MailingID"
X-Destination-ID: <myemail!>
X-SMFBL: a2J1bm5AY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_AEA6_74B0DC51.19495CFF"
x-subscriber: twP1ZqNSkLrOn02OxjFuWdar3Fpd3tYX
X-AccountCode: USEOPWH
X-Mailer: bulletin
X-TokenInfo-OBO: 32233
Errors-To: info114@service.govdelivery.com
Reply-To: "David Axelrod, The White House" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1250163784912.1288484715.1829445126.bulletin.tomca t5@prod-batch1.visi.gdi>
Subject: Something worth forwarding
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:10:40 -0500
To: <myemail>
From: "David Axelrod, The White House" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>




This was at the end of the email:

This email was sent to <myemail>
Unsubscribe (http://messages.whitehouse.gov/unsubscribe?address=<myemail>&verification=2.3d4defafb6de6ac7390ed0db6a60ae0e) | Privacy Policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/privacy/)
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/?ec=11)

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Beelz..

You cant be serious.

When someone has something really bad happen to them, you think its A-Ok for the company to claim "Pre-Existing" condition and walk away?

You are working at a job.. you get a new one with new insurance.. you go to the doctor and find out you have cancer.. Guess what your new insurance company is going to say?
"Sorry dude.. Pre-Existing Condition.. good luck with life"

The life of one person is worth more than the total profits of all the insurance companies combined.

Listen to this.. its pretty amazing

http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=386

Skip to Act 3... but the rest of the show is pretty good too.. especially the Van Halen stuff. (Health Care stuff around 30 min mark)

Also

The Truth About the Insurance Industry

Insurers often complain that their critics don't understand their business practices. It would be hard to say that about Wendell Potter. Potter, whose name sounds like that of a character in a Frank Capra movie, worked in the health insurance industry for more than 20 years. He rose to be a senior executive at Cigna. He was on their calls, at their board meetings, in their books. And today, at a hearing before Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Commerce Committee, he testified against them.

What drove Potter from the health insurance business was, well, the health insurance business. The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.

The best way to drive down "medical-loss," explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care. And the insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies. "One is policy rescission," says Potter. "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

And don't be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. Last week, at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. "No," they each said.

Potter also emphasized the practice known as "purging." This is where insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with "intentionally unrealistic rate increases." One famous example came when Cigna decided to drive the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust in California and New Jersey off of its books. It hit them with a rate increase that would have left some family plans costing more than $44,000 a year, and it gave them three months to come up with the cash.

The issue isn't that insurance companies are evil. It's that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. And as Potter explains, he's watched an insurer's stock price fall by more than 20 percent in a single day because the first-quarter medical-loss ratio had increased from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent.

The reason we generally like markets is that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But in some markets, that's not the case. We don't allow a bustling market in heroin, for instance, because we don't want a lot of innovation in heroin creation, packaging and advertising. Are we really sure we want a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly?

If you'd like to read Potter's testimony in full, I've uploaded it Potter Commerce Committee written testimony - 20090624- FINAL.pdf.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_truth_about_the_insurance.html

One last thing about the email the use of the term "discriminated" in this context is an insult to every minority that was ever truly discriminated against. If an insurance company doesn't choose to do business with any individual because their exposure to loss is too great that is their choice. Those choices are made by people who want to make money, insurance is a business not welfare. I can't drive a BMW because I can't afford it why should someone at BMW be able to tell me I have to buy their car.

I think you missed the point of discrimination and tried to equate it to capitalism? Seriously?

The life of one person is worth more than the total profits of all the insurance companies combined.

No, not really.

No, not really.

Of course not...that is until you are the guy on your deathbed being denied coverage.


Do you believe "death panels" are part of the proposed health care reforms?

Yes 23% 11134

No 64% 30200

Don't know 13% 6225

Total Votes: 47559

Once again we see that between 20 and 30% of Americans are retarded.

Of course not...that is until you are the guy on your deathbed being denied coverage.

We can't live forever.

If money is theoretically a measure of how much society has valued your contributions and you don't have enough to get what you need, a sense of entitlement isn't necessarily valid. Now, should society show compassion and help you anyway? Sure, maybe.

If you compared one human life vs all profit no company would ever be formed. Someone is always able to draw their life value > any endevour.

At some point reality has to sink into those with their heads deep in the clouds of self delusion.

Reform , at this point, can't be so much about the value of a single life as opposed to quality of life for a nation.

We are not a socialist country, well not yet, hell I don't know that any country could survive such a fine razor line as L2 described. Eutopia is quite a way off, especially if you don't chose to believe such is possible ( afterlife point there! )

EUtopia, is that where Halo lives? hehe

When that nation is paying for their elderly already (medicare, medicaid) the "everyone dies sometimes" argument kinda loses a lot of weight. Right now we just don't provide care for the children and adults who aren't elderly - which probably are collectively cheaper to provide for AND will grow up to have less medical conditions with proper preventive care. Its a fairly easy jump to assume the costs we or our employeers pay (out of our paychecks) cover our health insurance already PLUS the corporate beaurocracy PLUS profits PLUS we already pay for those uninsured who show up at hospitals without proper preventitive care since they don't have insurance. Its that latter group that we pay for already unofficially at a much higher price which this would remedy if nothing else.

Yea like my neices premature child she had a couple years ago. Any guess what 6 months of intensive preme care cost...well all of us? Well in excess of a million dollars, and the little one died 2 weeks before she was suppose to be born.

19 year old, no insurance...who paid that bill?

PLUS we already pay for those uninsured who show up at hospitals without proper preventitive care since they don't have insurance. Its that latter group that we pay for already unofficially at a much higher price which this would remedy if nothing else.


So true, the ER and clinics of my employer are full to the brim of patients jsut needing basic non-critical care. We've opened 3 additional "urgent" care clinics in the downtown area and they still come to the ER (why we don't know but we're trying to change that mentality). The thing is when you walk thru the doors of the ER and register yourself as a patient you will be seen no matter your ability to pay or urgency of your problem. It is costing us a shit ton of money to keep this up but we have to. Ask these people why they come to the ER and they say, we don't have insurance.

Though it's an unsustainable debacle, keep in mind that the elderly have funded some non-trivial portion of their care via taxes paid throughout their lives; ostensibly a percentage of society's valuation of their contributions.

Life should always trump profit. Its the core aspect of western morality and any action that works counter to that is immoral.

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth?"
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov

We are talking about the difference between good and evil. No Fandros, you are wrong.. we are not talking about the quality of life but the very right to be alive. Our most basic and unalienable right. Profit motives of another should never enter the equation of whether you live or you die.

Do they? Yes.. unfortunately evil exists in our society.. but you become complicit if you accept it and knowingly tolerate it.

We decide what our society is like.. and if you say
"I accept that Mega Insurance made Elevendy Bazillion Dollars, in the process was directly responsible for the death of even 1 person because of profit, and in the final analysis, it was a good thing" then you have betrayed everything this country is really about, what your religion is about and you have become part of the cancer eating away at the fabric of what we have.

That sort of lofty, extremist rhetoric sounds great, but it's not realistic at all. Private insurance may limit treatment to boost profits, but public insurance must limit care to meet budgets too. Is that immoral?

Is it immoral that we simply cannot keep every person alive indefinitely? Where do you draw the line?

I think what is being lost as well...is the fucking costs associated keeping people alive. There is so much BS charges/costs with any procedure, get those under control, reel in the waste full spending and billing practices from procedures to medicine.

Getting a handle on drug costs and administrative costs would save hundreds of billions of dollars. There is a reason why as a self pay I receive up to a 40% discount, there is little administrative costs involved. There are far less administrative costs associated with public/government plans than there are with private plans, there is also a huge revenue savings because there are no advertising or marketing budgets needed.

As far as Sanchek attempting to look pragmatic he once again shows an epic failure in progress. There have been thousands and thousands of cases where people would have easily lived had their treatment not been denied by his beloved private market.

It is a tough call to most, with the exception of Sanchek, to have to choose between total financial ruin and homelessness for your whole family or to just let that one kid die...but hey...it is just one kid...right?

where do you draw the line?


life should always trump profit

there!

As far as Sanchek attempting to look pragmatic he once again shows an epic failure in progress. There have been thousands and thousands of cases where people would have easily lived had their treatment not been denied by his beloved private market.

It is a tough call to most, with the exception of Sanchek, to have to choose between total financial ruin and homelessness for your whole family or to just let that one kid die...but hey...it is just one kid...right?

Trying to channel a Leftist Bill O'Reilly?

Meanwhile, where's your realistic answer? We could pour our entire GDP into health care and people would still have to be denied procedures that would result in death and suffering under any system. People are already being denied lifesaving procedures under Medicare/caid today.

So where's the line? How do you decide who lives and who does it? All this talk of superior Western morality is an absurd bag of worms to open up, given both our long and short term history as a country.

Beelz..

You cant be serious.

When someone has something really bad happen to them, you think its A-Ok for the company to claim "Pre-Existing" condition and walk away?

You are working at a job.. you get a new one with new insurance.. you go to the doctor and find out you have cancer.. Guess what your new insurance company is going to say?
"Sorry dude.. Pre-Existing Condition.. good luck with life"

The life of one person is worth more than the total profits of all the insurance companies combined.

Listen to this.. its pretty amazing

http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=386

Skip to Act 3... but the rest of the show is pretty good too.. especially the Van Halen stuff. (Health Care stuff around 30 min mark)

Also


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_truth_about_the_insurance.html

I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are not saying once you are accepted to be covered by the company then the company cancels your policy after you turn in a claim. They said an insurance company MUST cover you.

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.


I have a premium healthcare plan where I work but I pay for it, I am a diabetic, a preexisting condition which I disclosed to the insurance company they made a choice to cover me. When I have diabetic expenses such as drugs, testing supplies ect. they pay for it, it was expected. If they denied me I would move to another company or to a higher tier. Had I hidden that from the underwriters, in my opinion I would be guilty of fraud. I knew I had a condition I did not disclose, I misled the insurance company about their expense/risk in insuring me.

Now if the situation you address in those articles the insurance company is at fault however if there is preexisting condition the insured is guilty of fraud and thus shouldn't be covered.

There but for the grace of God go I...

In the late 1800's and early 1900's in New York City, certain Italian immigrants (called the Black Hand by some) operated a certain criminal enterprise by which they would "insure" that a business owner or otherwise wealthy individual would not suffer harm or otherwise tragic circumstances in exchange for a set amount of money. Naturally, once an initial payment was made there was never an end to demands for further "protection" money.

The "criminal" element got smart. Now we have mandatory auto insurance, and health insurance that may or may not provide for your needs, and one of the best financed lobbying groups in Washington.

The Sanchek model of healthcare seems to be:

A man is brought into the hospital ER after a car accident. He is a post graduate nuclear physics student who has worked his way through college by working part time at a warehouse was about to finish his thesis on a break through on theory of cold fusion and was returning home to write the final draft when the accident occurred. The injuries are severe and require surgery immediately to stem internal bleeding as well as extensive post opp recovery and physical therapy. After the preliminary examination and course of action decided on, the total expenses are calculated. The man's insurance status, which is none, as well as a credit report is also pulled as well as his employment status. His report was just so so and based on the current and past earnings from part time work that the costs of saving his life would never be recouped. The decision is then made to make him comfortable and allow him to quietly slip away from internal hemorrhaging. Healthy organs were then harvested and sold to recoup the expense of the ambulance service, the drugs given to ease the pain, the use of the hospital space and the storage of the corpse in the morgue until the family claimed his remains. The hospital managed to make a small profit but the world lost cold fusion and the man's family lost a loved one because the accountants felt he was not valuable enough to save. Bummer. Maybe if he had been smart enough to patent the ideas and got rich first....

Meanwhile, the drug addict washed up B movie actress drinks too much scotch and takes too many sleeping pills. Even though her career is shot along with her looks, she still has plenty of money well invested and has insurance from a firm on sound footing. She is rushed to the hospital near death, is provided top notch care and is then sent home after a few weeks.

In Sanchek World this is perfectly reasonable, where your value to society is measured purely in what your monetary worth is and how well health care costs can be leveraged against it.

Well, it will certainly help with population control and assure that only the finest of individuals in true Darwinian fashion get to survive. Plus its easy to be cruel and heartless, even if the methods for doing so is to just allow the market to decide. It takes a bit more WORK to be fair, just, and humane in giving EVERYONE a fair shake at the fullest potential of life. Granted, it might also be fair to meet health care half way and take care of one's self.

Before you put all that work into hyperbole, you should've considered the fact that the post-grad student would have great insurance for cheap through his university.

I didn't have insurance in college. I was going off of personal experience. But thanks. I will look at health plans when considering school in two years when I go back as an augment to my VA bennies.

How come there are no genius prodigies (that I know of anyway) in history from Africa? Babies are born with inate mental capabilities, how they are brought up and nutured determines their ability to contribute to society. After all these pages of this thread we are getting closer to the underlying issue here. What will it take for humans to live for another 100 to 100k years on earth? Innovation in financial products? Hardly. Technology is the key. We will survive and flourish because of technology. Is it a good thing that so many of our bright young college students chose to go into finance because it is the top of the chart in salary? Our best and brightest are going into finance and business instead of engineering, medicine, biology, technology, etc, because of profits.

How can we survive if we as a whole, focus on greed and short term profits, instead of technology and long term sustainabiliy.

If we cant create a health care system that provides for the needs of all, including the neediest of all, how will we ever survive? What if Einstein or Hawking was born to a mother in Ethiopia? Would we enjoy the benefit of their contributions?

How come there are no genius prodigies (that I know of anyway) in history from Africa?

First we will have to refer to the greater question posed by Sarah Palin. The country of Africa?

See: http://www.factmonster.com/spot/afroambios.html

Now, those are African Americans, but looking at many of the birth dates I will go out on a limb and say quite a few 1st and 2nd generation people there.

Looking back at things I would say that a valid answer to your question can be summed up in three words - Race Based Oppression - Example: Jim Crow laws

Throughout most of the past few hundred years the whole African continent was pretty much controlled or at least held in limbo by Europeans (who are notably not Black). Then there were these slave trader guys from the US and all kind of stuff like that.

First we will have to refer to the greater question posed by Sarah Palin. The country of Africa?

See: http://www.factmonster.com/spot/afroambios.html

Now, those are African Americans, but looking at many of the birth dates I will go out on a limb and say quite a few 1st and 2nd generation people there.

Looking back at things I would say that a valid answer to your question can be summed up in three words - Race Based Oppression - Example: Jim Crow laws

Throughout most of the past few hundred years the whole African continent was pretty much controlled or at least held in limbo by Europeans (who are notably not Black). Then there were these slave trader guys from the US and all kind of stuff like that.

Race guilt much? ;P

Most of the slave traders weren't from the US, history check there.

I think Phel was drawing a line, not so much based on race as opposed to limited choices in how they rear their children.

Are you saying there were slave traders who weren't from the US? I didn't know that. I'm betting the British and Dutch were in on it too, maybe even a few Russians (not the commie ones).

Of course this is race guilt...in fact that's all it is. The whole whites dominating the black population in Africa is pure liberal speculation as is the spraying of water from fire hoses on black civil rights marchers merely a misinterpretation of what was really an attempt to just cool them off in the southern heat.

Anyhow...oh wait...did you see that speculative movie about that race guilty guy Steven Biko?

Check out what the Belgians did in the Congo..

Itll break your damned heart.

This pretty much speaks volumes about our current health care system...the "best" in the world.


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57C0PE20090813

This pretty much speaks volumes about our current health care system...the "best" in the world.


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57C0PE20090813

I have such a hard time believing that the Kleckner family could not save up $50-100 over the course of five years for Ayana to get her teeth cleaned. Hell, she could've made enough to pay for that at McDonald's while she waited in line.

Not to poo-poo their overall plight or suggest they don't need help, but come on.

There was a funny segment on the mobile clinic being in LA on Bill Maher last night, if you can find it (not on YouTube yet that I can find).

I have such a hard time believing that the Kleckner family could not save up $50-100 over the course of five years for Ayana to get her teeth cleaned. Hell, she could've made enough to pay for that at McDonald's while she waited in line.

Not to poo-poo their overall plight or suggest they don't need help, but come on.

There was a funny segment on the mobile clinic being in LA on Bill Maher last night, if you can find it (not on YouTube yet that I can find).

I dunno, I find it pretty hard to sit in judgement of a family that can't afford a doctors or dentist visit, I look and say thank god that isnt me. But I'm also not so dumb as to realize that it could very easily be me and my children.

Again see: But for the grace of God go I...


The segment was very funny...it was targeted at the town hall protesters who are so angry and they don't know why. The haves are pissed and the have nots are nice and friendly.

Again see: But for the grace of God go I...

God helps those who help themselves.

God helps those who help themselves.


That sure is easy to say for someone who was born of a family who can afford and has access to housing, food, education and safety. Did you chose to be born to that family San or did you just get lucky? Is that any reason to be so harsh to those less fortunate than yourself?

Yes I know I am descending into altrusim, but it does drive alot of my feelings toward health care. I also do find it ironic that the teachings of Jesus were socialist, yet we are a nation of Christian capitalists. It doesnt make any sense.

The health care discussions everywhere seem to be increasingly complicated. The opponents of any sort of free healthcare are doing everything they can to twart anything that might help the lower classes, although I notice that most of the outspoken opponents are already well off. I sat in front of some ass today at the DMV who didn't want any of those, "money grubbing street people" riding on his tax dollars for free care. The woman with him apparently worked at a hospital, and kept trying to counter with arguments based on people she had seen turned away for insurance reasons, or people who lost everything paying outrageous bills - their house, posessions, all to cover necessary car. He just became increasingly outraged at, in his words, all those illegals and lazy people who can't be bothered to work a real job and get real insurance.

God may help those who help themselves, but that's an easy statement to make if you're in the middle to upper class. People working wage jobs don't usually have that luxury. One of the most disturbing comments I've read in regards to the healthcare bill came from a conservative Christian/Republican message board, stating that the best system was one in which a market exists, and people get the care they can afford. Which is good - not enough people remember that passage in the Bible where Jesus turns away the poor people first, and then only heals others based on their income level.

Many wage jobs don't start offering insurance until you've been employed a minimum of one year, and they go by hours worked, not shifts or start dates. The lower income populations are getting kicked around by the current system, something that's clearly proven. The inability to simply move forward with something that actually helps them is maddening. The straw arguments of flaws in other national health care plans is pointless - nothing is perfect, but it can improve considerably from where we are right now.

I'm coming from the perspective of someone with so-so school insurance, but I have two family members and a good friend who are all stuck in crap jobs because of pre-existing conditions. If they have to change providers/companies, they'll lost their insurance. I've helped with community fundraisers, including a massive one for my uncle, for two people now who needed life saving procedures that weren't covered under company plans.

The complaints about national care in other countries - Canada, England, etc. - are absurd. As someone with a crappy insurance plan, I've had bad wait times already. Again, if you aren't that upper class group, you're seeing the problems in the system.

What's really amazing about the current debate is the breakdown of the camps of opponents. One group seems to want to criticize the flaws and see them fixed - fantastic. The other group just wants to shoot the plan down because it was suggested by a Democrate, and the endless comparisions from both sides going back to other presidents and finger pointing going back three presidential terms is an unbelievable waste of energy.

And for all that's holy, would someone please explain to the conservative right what the difference is between socialism and communism already?

And for all that's holy, would someone please explain to the conservative right what the difference is between socialism and communism already?

They prefer not knowing.

That sure is easy to say for someone who was born of a family who can afford and has access to housing, food, education and safety. Did you chose to be born to that family San or did you just get lucky? Is that any reason to be so harsh to those less fortunate than yourself?

I agree that almost everything has a larger component of luck than anyone really wants to admit. I've always said, "I'd rather be lucky than good."

However, no one ever got lucky while they were standing in a line waiting on a handout, nor while sitting around complaining about how bad they have it. That goes just as much for some white collar types I know as it does anyone in Inglewood.

Personally, I was born into the very lowest precipice of the middle class, and that's being generous. My parents didn't have insurance when I was born, and had to negotiate a payment plan with the hospital (which they paid). I'll spare you the lowlights, but we had it very hard some years when I was growing up. My parents never complained about it though, and they never asked anyone for a handout. They just worked harder (and made my Sister and I work harder too).

So, I am supremely unmoved by the oh-so-trite "you don't understand because you've had it easy."

So, as a wealthy country with the means to do it, is there any reason why the government shouldn't help with basic needs? It's not like the handout in question is a free bag of money, or a steak dinner at an upscale restaurant followed by a free Porsche. The term handout is a slam aimed at twisting opinions. There's more than enough evidence to show that hard working people are hurt by the current system, especially those with preexisting or rare, non-covered conditions.

It's a wierd case, almost a civil rights issue. We expect certain rights based on the Bill of Rights in this country - if the issue was about speech or legal proceedings it would be much clearer. If there were a provision granting health care, same deal. Why is there so much opposition to helping people improve their lives?

Reading another forum, I started to wonder if some of the fear really is racist, as several commentators on NPR have suggested. Maybe upper class whites are worried about Obama's statement that you can choose your doctor - what if the brown people choose upper class doctors?

There is a strong classist argument here as well. Unless the upper classes want to completely forgo using lower class services that don't include strong health care (wage jobs - McDonalds, going to the mall, cleaning services, gas stations, etc.) then we need to at least acknowledge that a large percentage of the population is in need of care, unable to get care, and simply expecting them to move on to better jobs is unrealistic and frankly impossible. Those jobs and the people who work them will always exist, and it's not because that class is lazy.

I can't type out a proper reply to that right now (on my phone), but to be clear: I absolutely do support us giving the health care experiment a try.

Yup - my post wasn't aimed at you, along with the class comments.

Reading ultra conservative forums early in the morning gets me cranky.

So, as a wealthy country with the means to do it, is there any reason why the government shouldn't help with basic needs? It's not like the handout in question is a free bag of money, or a steak dinner at an upscale restaurant followed by a free Porsche. The term handout is a slam aimed at twisting opinions. There's more than enough evidence to show that hard working people are hurt by the current system, especially those with preexisting or rare, non-covered conditions.

It's a wierd case, almost a civil rights issue. We expect certain rights based on the Bill of Rights in this country - if the issue was about speech or legal proceedings it would be much clearer. If there were a provision granting health care, same deal. Why is there so much opposition to helping people improve their lives?

I guess the question does boil down to entitlement. Personally, I do not think we're entitled to (or want) a nanny state. Liberty and entitlement are mutually exclusive. It's hard to turn down a handout, but there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

John Stossel's "Give Me a Break" had a good section about how damaging entitlements really are in the long run, both on a macro and microeconomic level. They set up all the wrong incentives in all the wrong places.

He also pointed out that before the government taxed the upper class so heavily, they provided substantial help to people in need. Now, there's an attitude that the government will take care of it, and so much obfuscation that it's hard to tell who is really in need even if you do want to help.

Government absolutely furthers that too. People like Maxine Waters don't want to truly better people. People like her set up government programs to give the needy just enough to make it and stay dependent on the government indefinitely (and be happy about it to boot).

They don't want us to help each other. They (and I mean both parties) want us to depend on larger and larger government to escort us every step of the way from cradle to grave.

There is a strong classist argument here as well. Unless the upper classes want to completely forgo using lower class services that don't include strong health care (wage jobs - McDonalds, going to the mall, cleaning services, gas stations, etc.) then we need to at least acknowledge that a large percentage of the population is in need of care, unable to get care, and simply expecting them to move on to better jobs is unrealistic and frankly impossible. Those jobs and the people who work them will always exist, and it's not because that class is lazy.

I think it goes even beyond that. Our population is going to have insanely high rates of type 2 diabetes soon (already does, really), and no one wins in a society full of blind cripples. How will Fox make 9 figures off American Idol Season 25 if no one can see it? Diabetes killed the TV star?

I have little confidence in the realistic effectiveness of health care based prevention of these sort of things (do people *really* need a doctor to tell them eating like shit is unhealthy?), but at least treatment can assuage the severity of the symptoms.

Originally Posted by Rover http://ayonae.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ayonae.com/showthread.php?p=172615#post172615)
Again see: But for the grace of God go I..

God helps those who help themselves.


Well I see you have little understanding of things beyond .net coding.

Anyhow, my Dad was brought up very poor and he instilled in me one very true saying "The two best helping hands are the ones at the end of your arms"

The Grace of God refers to one simple thing...Watch out that could be you....

There are certain things the government must do because its too big for the public to do itself.

There is no plan right now to turn health care into an entitlement. None. I think its important for people to know that. The "public option" so to speak that they are talking about is self sufficient. It does not operate on public funds. The advantage that it has is non profit.

As far as entitlements. Americans as a whole feel pretty damn entitled to alot of things. We have pretty high demands from our government and will not tolerate them not giving us the things we want..

A Day in the life of Osgilliath

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Old people need to shit or get off the pot. Medicare is government run health care. Either you like govt run health care or stop fucking using it.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the government school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Fixed that for you...

wanna provide any context for your hudge change? I'm not really sure of your point.

SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Only thing you forgot was to delete all of the government things that work, including socialised health care. I wonder why it works in all other countries and even in ours but there are still a small group of the grossly misinformed that think it won't work because insurance companies won't make the profits they make now.

Is this about Americans receiving health care or is it about keeping the current monopolies in power and making ever growing profits at the expense of doctors, patients and hospitals?

Maybe all of those politicians who grab the ears of the dumbest 20% of the nation should just stop trying to get into power so they can funnel the "socialist" dollars to their cronies...maybe they should Go Galt.

Medicare, social security and hell the cash for clunkers program all being run so horribly it's painful to watch.

Yes, those are beaming examples and ya'll want the gov to run more?

Change needs to happen, don't get me wrong and I'd be hypocritical to say I'm not personally involved after being medically retired from the DoD and soon to be collecting social security disability ( still trying to figure out how I'm going to afford medical insurance for myself and my 17 year old ) .

I think you need to start with the costs and red tape of how health care is run before you start throwing more money at the situation.

Starting anywhere else is pure stupidity and shows a complete lack of understanding in how to view processes.

Medicare, social security and hell the cash for clunkers program all being run so horribly it's painful to watch.



What is run so poorly in each of those?

What is run so poorly in each of those?

The first two are running heavily in the red ( how do you not know this, social security is nearly bankrupt ), the last one has a growing number of dealers who are over a million in debt due to the govt unable to funnel the funds.

85% rejection rate for folks trying to turn in cars is great stuff, the contractors the govt has as a middle man is being lambasted quite frequently on local news.

the CoD thing is BS. The money has been allocated and is coming. Everyone knows that.. its not a big deal. This is version 1.0 of an idea that first came about a few months ago. Its natural for something this big to have kinks working out. But the program itself is working as intended. (no pun... intended)

SS is nearly bankrupt. Yes.. thats true. And Medicare is going to be in the red in a few years. Both for different reasons. But Fandros... they both work. They work well. People do not want these programs to go away and expect them from their government. So what we have is an administrative problem, not a problem with the actual delivery of the program itself.

SO you are in favor of universal health care.. you just want it run well. That wasnt so bad, was it?

Sure I want it for everyone, but ya'll are advocating a "throw cash at it and it'll work" scheme and it's patently stupid.

You have to fix the problems first before you dump more cash and have more folks depend on it.

the CoD thing is BS. The money has been allocated and is coming. Everyone knows that.. its not a big deal. This is version 1.0 of an idea that first came about a few months ago. Its natural for something this big to have kinks working out. But the program itself is working as intended. (no pun... intended)

SS is nearly bankrupt. Yes.. thats true. And Medicare is going to be in the red in a few years. Both for different reasons. But Fandros... they both work. They work well. People do not want these programs to go away and expect them from their government. So what we have is an administrative problem, not a problem with the actual delivery of the program itself.

SO you are in favor of universal health care.. you just want it run well. That wasnt so bad, was it?

Ahhh and the Cash for clunkers, is a huge mess on both ends. Magically "throughput" as you thought you knew it didn't happen overnight ( and doesn't, never will and likely no monies will be spent to increase it for a TEMPORARY program. ).

It's a fucking pipe dream ran and thrown out as chum for those too blinded by the party line to see that throwing cash ( upchucking cash that'll have to come from somewhere ) doesn't fix ....anything.

stupidity at it's best...

wanna provide any context for your hudge change? I'm not really sure of your point.


Just that you don't really understand that mindset. No self respecting 'Conservative' would ever call it a public school.

The CBO estimates that the public option would save about $150 billion over the next ten years -- that's roughly an $1,100 saving for every taxpayer. Why do republicans want us to pay more taxes by not voting for a public option?

It's never about the logic, it's always about winning.

If they can get enough people focused on Obama's Death Panels <TM> rather than the $110/year savings they might get by this thing passing, they might pick up a few seats back up in Congress.

Or maybe, they might actually get Obama out of the White House altogether.

Regardless, I tend to agree with Fandros. We need to fix what's currently wrong, first. Throwing more money at it, isn't gonna fix it. Just look how well that worked for insurance companies....

Just that you don't really understand that mindset. No self respecting 'Conservative' would ever call it a public school.

Is that because you are retarded? Why is such a core part of the "conservative mindset" blatant ignorance of fact and reality?

Ever hear of a school board? You know.. those people from the community who are elected and decide what the curriculum is going to be? Public schools are all about local control.

Magically "throughput" as you thought you knew it didn't happen overnight

Uhh... when did I say it would?

but ya'll are advocating a "throw cash at it and it'll work" scheme and it's patently stupid.

Of course you understand that a Public Option is designed to operate independent of public funding... right? Just making sure. Nobody is advocating just throwing money at anything. I think the plans are pretty detailed and pretty damn specific about what is being proposed. Not only that.. but everything is going to be paid for. No borrowing to make this come about.. like the prescription drug benefit.

And you can slag out Cash for Clunkers all you want.. I understand that it being a successful program and doing what it was intended to do is a tough thing for people so locked into a narrative to comprehend.. but the fact remains that it works.. people are buying cars and nobody seriously expects the government not to pay dealers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/15/eveningnews/main5244394.shtm

The whole panic there isnt that people arent buying cars, but that the money isnt moving out fast enough and storage costs are mounting. That is not a big deal. But, as we all know, the conflict drives media. No matter how small.

Medicare, social security

Social Security isn't failing because it was poorly run, it was fairly because it was ROBBED by the Congresses of the last 30 years and we laughed at Al Gore for his "put it in a lockbox" initiative.

Medicare manages to deliver coverage to subscribers for less than private HMOs in terms of money in -> out.

It's disingenuous in the extreme to try to characterize these programs as "inevitable government failure" because they were deliberately sabotaged on the back end by members of Congress who were not held accountable for their actions.

Is that because you are retarded? Why is such a core part of the "conservative mindset" blatant ignorance of fact and reality?



Ever hear of a school board? You know.. those people from the community who are elected and decide what the curriculum is going to be? Public schools are all about local control.




I don't know why I'd be considered retarded for that mindset. Please note I never said I subscribed to it.

Regardless, perhaps there's a shining example of how bad/well the Government does things that can be applied to the healthcare issue. Would having a panel of local people in charge be a worthy idea, or does that smack too much of the Death Panel <TM> mantra?

I think Fandros is just falling prey to the vast ammount of mis-information out there getting so many people angry and engaged. There is billions to be made or lost over this, and every side is happy to throw any information out there to help their cause.

Truthfully I'm sitting back and waiting to see where AARP lands on the issue. Surprisingly strong history of being bi-partisan and ultimately looking out for all older Americans, if they can pick a side on this issue its safe to say they won't lead you wrong.

I think Fandros is just falling prey to the vast ammount of mis-information out there getting so many people angry and engaged. There is billions to be made or lost over this, and every side is happy to throw any information out there to help their cause.

Truthfully I'm sitting back and waiting to see where AARP lands on the issue. Surprisingly strong history of being bi-partisan and ultimately looking out for all older Americans, if they can pick a side on this issue its safe to say they won't lead you wrong.

Actually I'm not falling prey to anything other than asking...

"HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THIS GET PAID FOR"

When we all know that the red tape involved in health care has driven costs for procedures sky high. The answer is to throw more cash at the system first??? You don't take rocks and logs out of a stream by dumping in more water when you could just as easily improve your water flow by removing the rocks and logs first do you?

Maybe ya do, easier and requires less work that way. Long as you don't have to pay for that damn water you are dumping in....maybe your kids/grandkids have to pay for the new lease on water rights. Not your problem right? ;P

When we all know that the red tape involved in health care has driven costs for procedures sky high.

The administrative costs? They are far lower with government than they are with the private industry. That is the main complaint the private industry has. Government costs are lower which would make the public option far less expensive thereby, in their words, kill competition...I think they really mean they know they suck and really won't be able to hide it then.

The administrative costs? They are far lower with government than they are with the private industry.

Wow, other than serving ( with honor mind you ) in the military you've never worked in the govt have you. Never watched the bidding process, never had to work with substandard parts due to redirected monies or had to hold up a repair because a request for out of contract repair takes 10 days to get approved.

Sorry Rover, wrong place to pitch that line. It's bunk, there is far more red tape and middle management in the govt than in the private sector.

Wow, other than serving ( with honor mind you ) in the military you've never worked in the govt have you. Never watched the bidding process, never had to work with substandard parts due to redirected monies or had to hold up a repair because a request for out of contract repair takes 10 days to get approved.

Sorry Rover, wrong place to pitch that line. It's bunk, there is far more red tape and middle management in the govt than in the private sector.


This isn't about granting government contracts to private entities which are lobbied for by the special interest groups, much like the insurance industry lobby. Come on man, you're smarter than that.

Who do you think is going to do the "work". Govt doctors and administrators? They going to appear magically out of the air?

Truth is, even on military bases almost all of the work is done by civilian contracted out companies.

So it'll be contractors doing work through some sort of govt oversight. Best of both worlds!!!

Fandros, I believe the goal under Obama's plan is that the insurance will get paid for with the money you and/or your employeer currently pay for your health insurance (though in many cases the result will cost less since it is a much greater pool bidding). The cost of the uninsured will be rolled into this plan, but the thought process is that giving uninsured/underinsured early coverage this would reduce the extremely expensive emergency care which we already pay for indirectly (hospitals treat uninsured for free in exchange for those of us with insurance pay more at the hospitals, generally 30 to 40 percent more). This would be a public OPTION, should you wish to keep your old employeer paid for plan you can always do that and NOTHING changes. (though I envision most employeers giving everyone a raise and cutting their health care plans, all while still saving money and cutting costs)

If we're already paying premiums and we're already paying 30 to 40 percent more for them to cover the uninsured its not that great of a leap to think they can pull something off with savings for all. After all, in nearly every aspect of medicine its cheaper to find and resolve a problem early than later.

Forgive me my ignaramousnesses, but as i see it. currently..

You...........> Insurance giant...........> Doctor

Under Obama's far from perfect plan...

You............> Doctor...............>Government

Nothing we ever endeavor to do will be perfect. thats the flaw in bieng human.

But if this moves us even a half a step in the better direction, i'm down!!!!

Social Security isn't failing because it was poorly run, it was fairly because it was ROBBED by the Congresses of the last 30 years and we laughed at Al Gore for his "put it in a lockbox" initiative.

Medicare manages to deliver coverage to subscribers for less than private HMOs in terms of money in -> out.

It's disingenuous in the extreme to try to characterize these programs as "inevitable government failure" because they were deliberately sabotaged on the back end by members of Congress who were not held accountable for their actions.

Malse beat me to this, but I hope most here (who seem usually to be a notch or two above the average citizen in being informed) realize that there has been an ongoing usage of the Social Security fund as a piggy bank that Congress, and Presidents (think REAGAN!!!), have felt was there for them to pilfer from at will as long as they left proper I.O.U.'s.

The Social Security program is not at fault for the government (i.e., our elected representatives) siphoning away it's resources to avoid having to make other harder decisions, or cutbacks.

It seems to be heading towards being a dead initiative.

I have a better idea. Lets get rid of this socialist govt run medicare, and let all the seniors figure out how to get insurance from the private sector. Seriously, fuck seniors. If they cant understand that they are the root of the financial problems with healcare, and that medicare IS govt run healthcare, then let them sink or swim on their own. It would save all of us taxpayers a hell of alot of money. That is the capitalist way right? God helps those that help themselves....

If it were up to me, the retirement age, as in when you would be able to start collecting Medicare and Social Security should be raised to 75 or even 80. If the Baby Boomers are going to start collecting AND continue to work, thus locking in the members of Gen X and Gen Y into limited promotion choices in their career paths while at the same time double dipping, then it seems only fair. I plan to work until they wheel my cold dead corpse out of the workplace, either one I own or work at, and chunk me in the dirt. Not because I WANT to, but because I HAVE to. Its bullshit that my retirement is going to be frittered away by these fuckers, be it both in lost earning potential due to no promotions and the fact that they will probably live long enough to bankrupt social security and Medicare while still having a regular paycheck coming in along with company bennies. it does not help that Gen X and Gen Y represent a Baby Bust as well. There is barely going to be enough of us to pay for these geriatrics.

So yes, a backlash against those already sucking the tit could be valid. The old farts who collect Medicare and SS while still making 250k a year, the Welfare trash that are fat beyond belief, smoke 3 packs of cigs a day and drink 2 bottles of whiskey with the brand new satellite dish bolted to the roof of the shack to feed a brand new 40" 1080p TV. All the abuse runs rampant. Perhaps that needs to get cleaned up first before we find new outlets for more fraud, waste,and abuse perpetrated by the PUBLIC and not so much the government. Then we just might find that public healthcare is easily affordable.

I have a better idea. Lets get rid of this socialist govt run medicare, and let all the seniors figure out how to get insurance from the private sector. Seriously, fuck seniors

As long as the rule is first blow has kill rights and gets teh lewts i'm for that idea. Cuz honestly kill stealing Granny out from under you is just plain wrong!

The old farts who collect Medicare and SS while still making 250k a year, the Welfare trash that are fat beyond belief, smoke 3 packs of cigs a day and drink 2 bottles of whiskey with the brand new satellite dish bolted to the roof of the shack to feed a brand new 40" 1080p TV.

Hey watch it pal...it's a 42" TV.

It seems to be heading towards being a dead initiative.



I truly wonder if this is by design. I mean we are expecting those that are the biggest recipients of cash from the insurance companies to write legislation to give them less influence?

I also am fairly sure that the drop in Obamas numbers have to do more with his non-action and feeble support for a public option than it has to do with the whole reform thing. He was elected on a platform of change. When this started over 70% of Americans were polled in favor of a public option.

Yeah, but that was before they were forcing you to attend counseling every week from Martian Death Machines on the virtues of taking your daily dose of Marx in gelatin capsules secretly imported from China!

Don't bet on the Public Option being dead. As a matter of fact, I can virtually guarantee you its going to be in the bill, and its going to pass.

Heres some inside baseball for you on how its going to pass.

The House is going to pass a bill that has the public option in it. They have pretty much guaranteed that.

The Senate simply doesnt have the 60 votes required to pass that bill. They are however going to pass a bill that has Co-Ops.

The two bills sit for a bit, then on Oct. 16 reconcilliation kicks in. They have to form a committee for the house and the senate to reach a compromise on the two bills. Reid and Pelosi pick who they want on the committee from the majority side.

The Reconciliation Committee drafts a compromise bill that contains the Public Option. It passes the House easily... but heres the trick.. Reconciliation Bills only need 50 votes to pass the Senate. That is easy sauce and they have about 54 solid votes at the moment in the senate. The last hurdle is how they write it up coming out of committee so it clears the Byrd Rules.

The bill passes the Senate and it is signed into law by President Obama on or about November 15.

When does Armegeddon kick in? Around November 19th?

This is dead, the democrats themselves are growing more and more divided on the issue.

Inside baseball = happy thoughts...

heh.

We've played this game a few times before Fanny (2006 and 2008 as the larger examples)... where I tell you something way in advance, and you doubt me.. and you wind up very wrong.

Thats ok. Care to put your money where your mouth is? Case of beer or a bottle of some sort of mid level liquor, sent to the winner.. Health Care, with Public Option, by the end of November.

You think they havent known the score in the Senate since day one? You think Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden don't know they didnt have 60 in the Senate? Kennedy has made Health Care the mission of his life.. he knows the count.
This was always the plan.. This is why Obama has been hands off.. "Just get me a bill you can pass".
Also.. if you want to know why Obama has been so dead locked on that this has to be paid for or he wont consider it.. its because the only way it can be knocked out in Reconciliation is if it adds to the deficit, ala the Byrd Rules.

By the way.. do you have any proof that the democratic support for Health care is even one vote away from where it has been since day one? Any? Any congressmen or senator pull support away? Ill give you 50-54 rock solid democratic senators.. show me where and how they slip under 50. You cant. You have no facts. THey are still at least +20 over what is needed to pass it in the house. The votes have been counted for a very long time.

Like I said.. Money where your mouth is.

From my friend Bob Cesca at the Huffington Post.

Now, I have no idea if the White House's intention was to soften on the public option just enough to infuriate, then mobilize and activate the left to revive its push for the public option. But, as Noam writes, that's exactly what has happened.

Here are the immediate consequences of the president's and Secretary Sebelius's remarks from this past weekend:

1) The netroots are re-activated and are furiously talking policy and mobilizing again.
2) The House progressives have declared an ultimatum in support of the public option.
3) Congressman Weiner has emerged as a terrific spokesman in Congress.
4) The AFL-CIO has drawn a line in sand in support of the public option.
5) The debate has shifted back to policy and away from crazy wingnuts. As long as healthcare reform is about policy, the Democrats win.
6) Complacent, the far-right prematurely tipped their hand on their opposition to co-ops, weakening their position and signaling that no amount of comprise will win their votes.

If this was all by accident, then this White House is supremely lucky. If this was by design, I think we're dealing with some very smart people in the West Wing.

heh.

We've played this game a few times before Fanny (2006 and 2008 as the larger examples)... where I tell you something way in advance, and you doubt me.. and you wind up very wrong.

Thats ok. Care to put your money where your mouth is? Case of beer or a bottle of some sort of mid level liquor, sent to the winner.. Health Care, with Public Option, by the end of November.

You think they havent known the score in the Senate since day one? You think Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden don't know they didnt have 60 in the Senate? Kennedy has made Health Care the mission of his life.. he knows the count.
This was always the plan.. This is why Obama has been hands off.. "Just get me a bill you can pass".
Also.. if you want to know why Obama has been so dead locked on that this has to be paid for or he wont consider it.. its because the only way it can be knocked out in Reconciliation is if it adds to the deficit, ala the Byrd Rules.

By the way.. do you have any proof that the democratic support for Health care is even one vote away from where it has been since day one? Any? Any congressmen or senator pull support away? Ill give you 50-54 rock solid democratic senators.. show me where and how they slip under 50. You cant. You have no facts. THey are still at least +20 over what is needed to pass it in the house. The votes have been counted for a very long time.

Like I said.. Money where your mouth is.

Actually you double talk and change when possible to sound as if you're right. I used to take what you said as gospel till I noticed the double talk. Infact you should be called often wrong Sung....errr Star Trek TNG quote there.

This bill is dead, a revised one will have to take place and that makes it a different critter. This one was poorly written and is DOA>

Enjoy

Actually you double talk and change when possible to sound as if you're right. I used to take what you said as gospel till I noticed the double talk

Again.. example please.

This bill is dead, a revised one will have to take place and that makes it a different critter. This one was poorly written and is DOA

See. you shouldnt talk about things you have little information about. What bill are you talking about?

See. you shouldnt talk about things you have little information about. What bill are you talking about?

LOL...so true...there is no bill yet.

nYlZiWK2Iy8

And never will be, if the loonies on the Far Left don't cut Obama some slack for compromise's sake.

Not that the loonies on the Far Right are much better....

Semantics aside, surely it's obvious that Fandros is talking about H.R. 3200?

Thanks San...

He'll twist and shout and mutilate the truth to try in vain to keep his soothsayer status of things political.

Meanwhile Rome burns and he capers about hoping against hope that the cash and burn mode will work.

Guess he doesn't care that his happy thoughts and his party line are just as destructive as the one he was oh so glad to see thrown out.

Both parties are a joke at the moment, thinking otherwise shows a lack of scope.

Fandros, melodramatic much? Rome burning was the end of an empire ... today the US and the rest of the world are starting to pull out of the recession. I surely haven't agreed with Bush or Obama on everything yet can't help but wonder how out of touch you are with the actual state of the country (that is, doing a bit better than innauguration day)

You go ahead and believe that Kelraz, we've yet to touch bottom.

You cannot be so damn blind to think that all that cash thrown out of our future pockets without producing a single job is actually "pulling out".

Wake up , I know you're young and haven't lived through a recession yet but this shit isn't done broiling yet. The massive inflation smack in the ass will have to come around and subside before I believe it's over.

But you go ahead and buy into that bullshit, hell invest all your savings in the stock market, go ahead...