birdog1960

they've accomplished nothing except temporary disruption. give an example of something constructive they've accomplished or are likely to. as to what or whom sparked their existence, who cares except that if they are astroturf based then we should watch for ulterior motives and agendas of those behind the curtain.

you don't believe what? that the shutdown doesn't happen without the teaparty? if that's what you meant and you previously said you never thought the tactics would work, then why would you support the tea party again. it's about the tactics. it's not about the position. you just stated that mainstream repubs hold your position. they (tea partiers) were dumb, damaging and they'll likely try something similar again.

the tea party was the driving force behind the recent showdown on the clean cr. do you believe that would have happened had there been no tea party members in place? almost no one else does.

once again subtle distinctions: it was possible as evidenced by its existence. also, they didn't shut down the govt to pass it.

no. there isn't a single tea party representative that supports or is ever likely to support the aca. they've made it clear, they'll go to extremes to try to stop it even if they have virtually no chance.there are dem reps and likely to be dem candidates that don't fully support it but none of them is likely to start a movement to shut down the gov't. see, it's a subtle distinction but perceptible if you pay close attention.

here's the question that defines whether you were for a futile gov't shutdown as a tactic to defund the aca. would you vote for ted cruz if you lived in texas? are you likely to vote for a tea party candidate in 2014 if you have the option? because without them, this shutdown doesn't happen. with them, it likely happens again and again. if you answer"yes" then based on the reasoning outlined, you either believed that the shutdown would accomplish some or all of your goals, you're stupid or both.

are you referring to our chinese creditors? they seemed pretty upset. i know they say a picture's worth a thousand words but you really should try your own prose sometime. it's old fashioned, yes. but you are a conservative.

credit rating, rising interest rates (do you know what a 1% increase does to our interest payments), speeding up loss of status as reserve currency, stock market crashing....read what the imf chief said. oh yeah, you probably won't believe her. she's european. you better tell b man that. i didn't see many posts with the theme "stop! this is stupid" from many cons here.

so you never expected this strategy to work for defunding the aca but supported it anyway? never minds that the whole fiasco might have been devastating to the country or more likely, to your causes? please explain how that is not delusional but i am.

most of you supported the shutdown. that in itself is admission that you thought it would win something. the logic goes something like this: 1 we are conservative. we support conservative causes. winning elections and defunding tha aca are 2 of the most important causes. the shutdown helps acheive one or both. therefore, i'm for the shutdown. alternatively, it might go like this: i'm conservative. i support conservative causes. the shutdown was a conservative cause. therefore i supported ti. finally there's this: i supported the shutdown cuz rush told me to. i'd like to believe i'm arguing with somebody that espouses something approaching the first line of reasoning. maybve not. why don't you lay out your thinking in supporting it. to what end were you aiming?

yup. the guy has real heart. he's a bit rough on his touch passes but the arm strength is there. fun to watch. give him more time to throw and the long ball becomes a real threat. trying to figure out freddie's injury. he was in agony from what had to be a knee or much less likely an ankle injury? how'd he come back so fast? dislocation? still would have had ligament damage, you'd think. anyway, the guy's amazing. through the years, the Bills most dependable player.

i believe the opposite of what churchill said: if you're young and liberal, you have no brains (not so sure of that part - churchill"s version or mine)). if you're old and conservative, you have no heart. i was right of attila the hun in college. life taught me different.

agree. steady at corner and getting better every game. but his judgement on punt returns is wrong more often than right and it's hurting us. likely touchbacks for fair catches resulting in possessions starting on the 7 or 8. if not for the penalty today, letting that bouncer go, on the 74 yard punt would've cost 25 yards. marrone needs to put someone else back on punts. the downside outweighs the upside.

mmmm, i saw a prediction of a political win for the right. na uh. loser every way possible. dumb and dumber.

wow. go back and read this thread early on, about a month ago. the conservatives here really need to get some new crystal balls.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bettors-verdict-gop-will-lose-the-house-2013-10-18. think i'll hedge my bets. $20 on the dems, $10 on the gop. doesn't surprise me you can't see the connection or the possiblities. paradigm shifts aren't your thing. well, no. caveat everyone. cuz testosterone is a controlled substance for very good reasons: it's an anabolic steroid that can lead to aggression and unpredictability- goes great with our current gun laws. and what a "normal" level is in an 80 year old man is anyones guess.

there's an old saying in medicine: loyalty is a $10 copay. it frequently holds for patients that have been seen for years and holds across specialties. if it costs $10 or 20 more to see one doctor than another because of insurance panels, they'll often switch. now if we used this phenomenon to encourage healthy behavior and check ups rather than use it to upsell folks on expensive technology that leads to even more testing, then health care and public health can effectively work hand to hand. and while were at it lets ban direct to consumer advertising of drugs, tests, etc. i'd love to know what the "low t" ads have cost the system in checking testosterone levels unnecessarily. they can be replaced public service messages on prevention.

financial incentives and disincentives do. the aca, facilitates their use.

except that health care systems can incentive cheaper care and disincentivize more expensive care. his/her argument assumes the us system remains unchanged. that assumption is now clearly incorrect.

but public health and health insurance can be easily linked. it's already started. some private insurers are requiring yearly wellness exams for favorable premium rates and discounts or cash rewards for proof of preventive care and testing. doesn't take much imagination to see how that could expand.

wanna cite a study on the effects of increased insured lives for the of US population, as i stated? i'm aware of a study on a small subset of the US population over a limited time period but i'm unaware of any measuring the effects on the entire population. i'm interested to see that.

i totally agree with the paragraph about the cost and outcome efficiencies of basic care over expensive whiz bang medicine. he almost seems to catch himself knowing it's antithetical to his argument yet can't bring himself to delete it, likely because he knows it's true. for profit medicine encourages use of these expensive and high margin technologies often with questionable evidence and sometimes with actual negative results. here's just one example: cardiac ct (calcium scoring). it seems every cardiology group over 3 docs and definitely every health system has 1 or 2 of these. and they regularly recommend and advertise screening for the general population despite the fact that the american college of cardiology guidelines (and the available evidence) clearly come down against general screening. why? cuz it produces big bucks downstream from caths , surgeries, treadmills, echos and consultations, many of questionable efficacy but definitely producing big revenue and big costs. much of the rest of the essay is incomprehensible and shallow. many of the criticisms have been addressed by the WHO and other globally respected organizations in peer reviewed journals, not in blogs. the nejm article on "ranking 37th" that i recently linked is a fine example. the multiple references to "the harvard study" are hilarious as if there's only been one study on global health outcomes across systems (unfortunately the link provided is stale). but i certainly recognize this as the source for many of your arguments here. it would be helpful to know his name and credentials. finally, contrary to what jauronimo states, the solution will likely involve consolidation and streamlining of big, fancy brick and mortar hospitals and more outpatient care in places like reclaimed strip mall spaces. after all, the fine art and post modern furniture in waiting rooms does nothing for outcomes. it's gonna be about utility and, as it must be in the usa, it will be market driven as the profit margins for the big ticket items disappear. that's how i suspect it will happen, anyway. probably as valid an hypothesis as that from any other unnamed blogger.

then we will have tried and failed but i don't believe that will happen for an instant. alternatively, we can be certain that the status quo won't improve things. i don't believe that the aca will look much like it does now by then. it will evolve. the aca is a vehicle to begin fundamental change in health care delivery that i'm very confident will occur. it has to.

the biggest problem with your argument is that those historical numbers don't exist for the population of the us. over the last 10,20 or 40 years the number of uninsured has increased steadily...and in comparison to the rest of the world, especially those with universal health insurance, the us has worsend in those outcomes and most others. therefore the converse of your argument has been shown: lowering the percent of insured population results in worse outcomes, comparatively. look at the life expectancy for various demographic groups in the us and you see very wide discrepancies with some groups (hmmm, guess what economic groups do the worst?) doing abysmally. many in those groups will be newly insured and many are the reason for the embarrasingly low numbers. is this all due to care access? very likely not. but some of it is. SO WHY DON'T WE WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW? and then you all can find methodology flaws if they look good for the aca and argue how they don't matter.

look at the parts where insurance is provided or subsidized to those without it. give it 5-7 years. there will be improvement and it will be measurable.