Cardioligists say F.U to Obama's Medicare cuts

[Magox]

I'll take that bet just for the hell of it. I am not sure whether the final bill that is passed will include the "public option" or the "co-op" option. Let's bet that it won't include either. All people really want is an option that will be lower than private insurance and make them compete. I don't care at all whether it is a public option or a co-op as long as it creates an option that is noticably less than private insurance.

 

And why don't you try refuting the substance or specifics of the article instead of just saying it's bull. Nate Silver is highly regarded and knows his stuff. Please tell me what you don't agree with in what he actually said, and why.

I'll gladly explain why it's "bull".

 

What is wrong with saying "public health care plan"? or "public health insurance company"? These are the questions from Rasmussen and WSJ/NBC

 

I'd like for you to answer this, as I am going to specifically answer your request. Is it not a health care plan that the Liberals want? Is it not a public one? Would it not be a insurance company that the government would be setting up?

" public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans".?

 

What the hell is wrong with this? This is Kaisers poll question. Is it not a public health insurance option that the Liberals want? Don't they want it to compete against private health insurance plans? There is absolutely nothing misleading about this poll question. Very straight forward.

 

Nate Silver argues that the word "public" is "vague and could conceivably be confused for something like a non-profit cooperative"

 

Did he really just say that? The !@#$ing Liberal plan is called the "public option"

 

He also criticizes the Rasmussen poll for saying "[A] government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies".

 

Is it not a government health insurance company, and would they not be competing with private health insurance companies?

 

Why hide the word Government, that is exactly what it is? It is a government plan.

What is wrong with that question Dog?

 

ABC/Washington Post say "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?"

 

again, what is wrong with this question?

 

The one he likes the best is from Quinnipiac (which btw was taken on August 5th, and the liberals have lost a lot of support on the "public option" since then)

 

Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?

 

The only thing that was different about this question was "giving people the option of being covered" was added into the question. There is nothing fundamentally different about this question than the Fox, Rasmussen and ABC/Washington Post and NBC/WSJ questions. Same freaking question, with a few different words. No difference.

 

Did you check out the date on the SRBI poll? July 29th. Dog, the loss of support for the plan started about 2-3 weeks ago.

 

The ABC/Washington Post poll was taken August 21st.

 

The Rasmussen Poll on August 27th

 

SCOTT RASMUSSEN, RASMUSSEN REPORTS: Well, 43 percent favor the plan, 53 percent are opposed. That hasn't changed much during the month of August. The really bad news for the White House, the people who are feeling strongly about this bill are far more likely to be opposed -- 43 percent of Americans strongly oppose it, just 23 percent strongly support it.

 

The NBC/WSJ poll

August 18th

 

Yet perhaps more troubling for the White House as it works to pass health care reform this year is that only 41 percent approve of his handling of health care. By comparison, 47 percent disapprove.

 

Moreover, just 36 percent believe that Obama’s efforts to reform the health system are a good idea, and only 24 percent think they will result in better quality of health care.

 

Bill McInturff, the GOP pollster who co-conducted the survey, says these numbers should signal a “cautionary light” for the White House. “There is a ‘go slower’ feel to this data.”

In the poll, 43 percent say they favor a public option, versus 47 percent who oppose it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/Journal poll, when 46 percent said they backed it and 44 percent were opposed.

 

 

and in Regards to Nate Silver, are we talking about the same Nate Silver who is from Chicago? The same Nate Silver who said this:

 

"My state [illinois] has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama."[21] With respect to the impartiality of his electoral projections, Silver states, "Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates? I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose as much about my methodology as possible."[22]

 

who also blogged on Daily Kos

 

and

 

Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism":

 

Rational progressivism?

 

for crying out loud, just call yourself a flaming Liberal

[SDS]

Question - does malpractice insurance come out before or after those quoted salaries?

 

Here's a nice link from 3 years ago:

 

http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/u.../4102168-1.html

 

$300,000 PER YEAR in malpractice premiums. Think about that.

 

How much are medical student loans these days? $125,000? What kind of salary do you think the some of the smartest people in this country need to have in order to take on the debt, the insurance premiums, and the 12 years of school...

 

So, if a doctor makes $450k, and writes a check for $300k and then tries to pay off $125k in loans... that doesn't leave to much now does it?

[StupidNation]

If liberals won't add tort reform they are liars if they want to reform anything.

 

Also the moronic liberals don't look at health care which doesn't have the gov't involved and looked at prices. Shall we?

 

Dental implants: down in cost

Liposuction: down in cost

Lasik: down in cost

 

Am I sensing a pattern? When the gov't is not involved the prices go down. Now add in tort reform and voila.

 

And if you are really concerned about the poor I have another suggestion... ask the F'ing Ds to restore the tax breaks and tax code that allowed charities to function and doctors to work for charity and write it off. People weren't dying in the streets before welfare in this country.

 

If you are really concerned about the 47 million uninsured donate your whole paycheck and leave mine alone. If I give to charity I don't want it at the point of imprisonment.

 

Lastly, this is why I hate liberals, they talk about the moral imperative to have health insurance but they will kill their own children in the womb saying you can't legislate morality. Go F off!

[OCinBuffalo]

Where is Sinclair Lewis when you need him! Where is the real Martin Arrowsmith!

Yes, of course, let's turn to fiction writers when we need quantifiable solutions that manage health care cost. While we're at it, let's turn to L. Ron Hubbard for advice on how to raise kids!

Because you'll probably never see income like that in your lifetime you need to begrudge the people that have found a way to do so. Awesome job.

This is the where the REAL "outrage" comes from. The terrible realization that the real world is....accurate, that your lot in life is what it is, that the market simply isn't willing to pay much for your untalented ass, and that the only way to change that depends on extremely hard work, is simply too much for some people to handle. Some deal with it...some B word about it....and some create an fantasy world, try to live there, and try to convince the rest of us of it's existence = Crazy Pelosi.

I didn't even read EI's response or LA's response to him. I only responded to LA's direct response to me and then your direct response to me. That's how the forum and reply box work.

Ahh yes...once again let's talk about process instead of content. Great way to make a point. Perhaps Obama bashing on Fox News or calling real people who are pissed about health care "plants", while at the same time planting his own people in his town halls, will make people forget about the crappy content of his ideas, and focus on the process instead

Thanks. Makes great clear sense. Now if you were being sarcastic, here is that reply:

 

Hey, why don't you take some responsibility for yourself instead of blaming other people (me) for not making sense. Maybe it is you that doesn't make sense.

 

Okay, there I covered both bases.

I honestly didn't think we would be adding "untenably retarded position" to the process vs. content debate...but apparently Exiled has added another option. So besides "both bases", does this cover 5th, 6th and giraffe base?

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts.

 

We will cross that bridge when it comes. I am sure they will not get blood out of a stone.

 

Hey... What can I say... I live on the wild side.

= what they were saying in FDR/LBJ's administration when they were coming up with SSI/Medicare/Medicaid.

 

"Who cares if we pass laws that create programs that will completely fail? We live on the wild side! While we're at it, let's blame everybody else but ourselves and our bad ideas when they fail! It doesn't matter anyway, because we can always cross bridges when we come to them!"

 

Is there a finer example of far-left hubris, anywhere in existence, than the above post?

 

You know, some days I don't even have to try....

I understand. And shoot me for saying this... There is a sense of entitlement here.

Quite the opposite. We need to start "shooting" the people who propagate the sense of entitlement = the trial lawyers. This 'sense' is created in the courtroom where the get to weave their fantastic tales of love and loss....for 30% of the take.

Yes Tom there was a point. Read your post I was replying to. You are making a lot of ifs with your tort reform post. We will see what happans... Never assume. Is the malpractice insurance premium really making doctors homeless? I didn't think so.

Yes...let's look everywhere/do everything but make an earnest effort to find the root cause of the problem. I notice nobody is talking about the "How Jon Edwards became rich by suing doctors and hospitals" story. Perhaps Kelly can write a made for TV movie about it.

 

Where is all your supposed "righteous indignation" about how much trial lawyers make for suing docs? You want to limit how much people can make doing their jobs? Why aren't we starting with lawyers? WTF possible value to they add to the value proposition of health care delivery?

 

But, like the obvious schill you are... you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. The trial lawyers wrote this health care bill...doesn't its blatant stupidity prove that? By now even someone with below average intelligence should be able to comprehend the play here.

 

At this point, you have three choices: continued stupidity...feigning ignorance...or admitting that this entire bill is a sham.

Actually, the word is ignorant and the person is you. The fact of the matter is it costs a lot to develop these things and they have a very finite consumer base. Add to that the fact that GOVERNMENT mandates care to people who can't afford to pay and you have hospitals and doctors who make up the money elsewhere - especially with people who have good insurance and a CONTINUING need.

God forbid that there are such concepts as "risk", "business models" and "market forces". Yes, the three guys I know who started a business from scratch building ceramic hip replacements...those are the real evil people here. They literally starved to get that company off the ground. But, of course, they are the bad guys. They are the "evil corporate" demons that are simply getting a return on their investment of blood, sweat and tears.

 

More importantly, let's let these liberal dbags...who have nothing whatsoever to do with this business....decide who is allowed to make what money. They obviously know better than my friends how to run their prosthesis business. While we are at it: let's appoint me to decide whether these liberal tools are doing "the right things" at their jobs. I am sure they won't mind...since I am smarter than they are, due to my career I am certainly qualified, and I can claim that I am doing the whole thing because I feel a "moral" need to make decisions for them.

If liberals won't add tort reform they are liars if they want to reform anything.

Professional problems solvers solve the whole problem...and don't leave new problems in their wake. So far this whole thing looks like amateur hour. Actually, more like idiot amateur hour.

 

The Democrats cannot talk about health care reform...and not talk about malpractice insurance reform. They can't talk about health care insurance reform, and not talk about malpractice insurance reform. They can't talk about "whatever-the-hell they are calling it next week" and not talk about malpractice insurance reform. Until they start talking about solving the WHOLE problem....they can blow whatever they are saying out their ass....because the vast majority of us won't stand for it. If they force it through...they can kiss control of the government goodbye, and this time for keeps.

Lastly, this is why I hate liberals, they talk about the moral imperative to have health insurance but they will kill their own children in the womb saying you can't legislate morality. Go F off!

This is the very kind of nonsense that WE DO NOT NEED. NOBODY gets to claim moral superiority over anybody else in this country...unless you are Mother f'ing Teresa. So keep your jackass "moral" claims to yourselves...on both sides. This is the contrapositive of the "throwing the first stone"....instead "be the first to STFU"!

 

Realize that you don't get to decide who is living in grace and who isn't. That's God's job. Come talk to me when you move out of your glass house and you haven't sinned for 10 years. Then, maybe, you get to start passing judgment on others....but, of course God will take you before then....since certainly He will recognize your potential as His Holy Policeman. Play your cards right...you might even make angel in less than 200 years.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

So despite all the name calling on all sides, does or can anyone describe a plan or scrap the whole system and direct payer deal that could work??

 

This should probably be another topic and as much as I would hope, I know that it will end back in name calling... but heck we might get some good ideas.

 

I still think eliminating insurance companies would be a good start. The tort reform would have to take place along with stricter criminal penalties with longer sentences. A partial exemption from civil penalties or a cap limited for Doctors.

Hospitals would still be subject to liability as far as how it operated.

 

Everyone would be given a government voucher for health care that could be turned in at the end of the years for a partial tax credit to be invested in a retirement plan or lifetime health savings plan. It would be funded by payroll taxes.

 

Eliminating insurance cos alone should save the system a lot. That is where I would start. After that, I don't know.

 

Any other ideas??

[Chef Jim]

Oh look, Alaskan Dimwit has come out of the wild. Just getting home after a pounding day at work? So the prices ARE NOT acceptable, but you justify the means at which they charge those prices. Make up your mind. Nice fence sitting as usual, don't let the post stick you in the ass.

 

You said:

 

The fact of the matter is it costs a lot to develop these things and they have a very finite consumer base.

 

So what is it? Are the medical prices acceptable or not acceptable. Simple answer please. No fence riding.

 

Hey this name calling can be fun too... Thanks for the tips.

 

I thought you were cool with the exploitation of the system.

[Chef Jim]

Question - does malpractice insurance come out before or after those quoted salaries?

 

Here's a nice link from 3 years ago:

 

http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/u.../4102168-1.html

 

$300,000 PER YEAR in malpractice premiums. Think about that.

 

How much are medical student loans these days? $125,000? What kind of salary do you think the some of the smartest people in this country need to have in order to take on the debt, the insurance premiums, and the 12 years of school...

 

So, if a doctor makes $450k, and writes a check for $300k and then tries to pay off $125k in loans... that doesn't leave to much now does it?

 

The other thing people don't realize is the amount of debt doctors come out of Med School with . The average is over $100,000 but many have debt of $250,000 or more.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'll gladly explain why it's "bull".

 

What is wrong with saying "public health care plan"? or "public health insurance company"? These are the questions from Rasmussen and WSJ/NBC

 

I'd like for you to answer this, as I am going to specifically answer your request. Is it not a health care plan that the Liberals want? Is it not a public one? Would it not be a insurance company that the government would be setting up?

" public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans".?

 

What the hell is wrong with this? This is Kaisers poll question. Is it not a public health insurance option that the Liberals want? Don't they want it to compete against private health insurance plans? There is absolutely nothing misleading about this poll question. Very straight forward.

 

Nate Silver argues that the word "public" is "vague and could conceivably be confused for something like a non-profit cooperative"

 

Did he really just say that? The !@#$ing Liberal plan is called the "public option"

 

He also criticizes the Rasmussen poll for saying "[A] government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies".

 

Is it not a government health insurance company, and would they not be competing with private health insurance companies?

 

Why hide the word Government, that is exactly what it is? It is a government plan.

What is wrong with that question Dog?

 

ABC/Washington Post say "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?"

 

again, what is wrong with this question?

 

The one he likes the best is from Quinnipiac (which btw was taken on August 5th, and the liberals have lost a lot of support on the "public option" since then)

 

Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?

 

The only thing that was different about this question was "giving people the option of being covered" was added into the question. There is nothing fundamentally different about this question than the Fox, Rasmussen and ABC/Washington Post and NBC/WSJ questions. Same freaking question, with a few different words. No difference.

You don't call it a "public option" because of the following, people don't know what that means.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/pol...lic-option.html

 

I didn't know what it meant until I read numerous articles about it. Most people on this board, from what they write, don't know what it means.

 

People would also think "government run" may mean government insurance companies and government doctors and government nurses and that's not what it means. The most important words in the polling, IMO, is "giving people the option" because that is the whole point. Most people think they may be forced into taking government insurance and that is NOT the case at all.

 

Silver also has a fabulous reputation. His numbers have been extraordinarily accurate in the last few years since he has come on the scene.

[Magox]

You don't call it a "public option" because of the following, people don't know what that means.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/pol...lic-option.html

 

I didn't know what it meant until I read numerous articles about it. Most people on this board, from what they write, don't know what it means.

 

People would also think "government run" may mean government insurance companies and government doctors and government nurses and that's not what it means. The most important words in the polling, IMO, is "giving people the option" because that is the whole point. Most people think they may be forced into taking government insurance and that is NOT the case at all.

 

Silver also has a fabulous reputation. His numbers have been extraordinarily accurate in the last few years since he has come on the scene.

I disagree, I see no fundamental difference what so ever in the point of the polling questions. "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" This is about as straightforward as it gets. It asks if you support or oppose a health insurance plan from the government that would compete with private insurers. Nothing misleading about it at all.

 

One of his arguments is that they use the word "Public Option".

 

And if he doesn't like the word "public option" then I would suggest the W.H and the rest of the liberals to change the term "public option". Because, that's it's !@#$ing name

 

In regards to the word government , where does it say "government run" in the polls that we are talking about? I'll tell you, it's not there. It is a government health insurance plan, and yes it actually would be "government run".

 

He also hinted at the idea that the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, WSJ, Rasmussen and Fox deliberately worded it that way. oh pleaase. That's a first.

 

In regards to his "fabulous" reputation, it is %100 attributed to his ability of being a phenomenal statistician, not for his opinions.

 

And I would expect no less from a person who is from Chicago, votes for democrats, supported Obama, blogged for Daily Kos and calls himself a "rational progressive" (in other words "I'm a liberal, but I don't want to be classified with kooks such as Pelosi, and I want to be different, oh ya and I do polling, so I don't want anyone to think I am partisan".

[Wacka]

If liberals won't add tort reform they are liars if they want to reform anything.

 

Also the moronic liberals don't look at health care which doesn't have the gov't involved and looked at prices. Shall we?

 

Dental implants: down in cost

Liposuction: down in cost

Lasik: down in cost

 

Am I sensing a pattern? When the gov't is not involved the prices go down. Now add in tort reform and voila.

 

And if you are really concerned about the poor I have another suggestion... ask the F'ing Ds to restore the tax breaks and tax code that allowed charities to function and doctors to work for charity and write it off. People weren't dying in the streets before welfare in this country.

 

If you are really concerned about the 47 million uninsured donate your whole paycheck and leave mine alone. If I give to charity I don't want it at the point of imprisonment.

 

Lastly, this is why I hate liberals, they talk about the moral imperative to have health insurance but they will kill their own children in the womb saying you can't legislate morality. Go F off!

 

You forgot kicking out the F'n illegal aliens. That would reduce health care costs and govt costs a lot.