Alaska Darin Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 Snide one liners are a mainstay in the typical extremists arsenal. I fail to see how you don't fall into the "extremist" category. The government is the largest reason for the health care mess and it's quite unlikely that they're going to change anything with anything that's currently on the table.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 I fail to see how you don't fall into the "extremist" category. The government is the largest reason for the health care mess and it's quite unlikely that they're going to change anything with anything that's currently on the table. I actually am not- I believe in a government-run system for WORKING Americans, unlike a lot of super left people and others who think ALL Americans should be covered. If you don't pay in, you shouldn't be entitled to jack squat to avoid others having to pay for those who don't work.
Alaska Darin Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 I actually am not- I believe in a government-run system for WORKING Americans, unlike a lot of super left people and others who think ALL Americans should be covered. If you don't pay in, you shouldn't be entitled to jack squat to avoid others having to pay for those who don't work. I would be very curious to find the real number of "working" Americans who aren't covered. If the government was actually serious about that, they could simply offer them TRI-Care. Easy enough. Of course, this is the same government who made it illegal for employers to directly offer the TRI-Care supplement to veterans because it meant veterans would actually use an earned benefit. But the government is all about helping. Regardless of that fact, there is little doubt the government will not solve a problem that they've created with 40 years of selling out the citizenry to the highest bidder. You want government health care? Join the military. Then end up in the VA system. Then tell me what a smart guy you are.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 I would be very curious to find the real number of "working" Americans who aren't covered. If the government was actually serious about that, they could simply offer them TRI-Care. Easy enough. Of course, this is the same government who made it illegal for employers to directly offer the TRI-Care supplement to veterans because it meant veterans would actually use an earned benefit. But the government is all about helping. Regardless of that fact, there is little doubt the government will not solve a problem that they've created with 40 years of selling out the citizenry to the highest bidder. You want government health care? Join the military. Then end up in the VA system. Then tell me what a smart guy you are. The whole idea could work if those in Washington wanted it to, but of course they will not as the lobby provides them with benefits that far outweigh doing the sensible thing. BTW, I do work for the government and I do receive benefits, and I would hope one day people like my fiance who works her butt off and can't afford health care will enjoy the same benefits.
UConn James Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 Thought this was interesting. A small step in the right direction, but there's still quite a gap. I just don't get why if "there's 80 percent agreement on what needs to happen" --- they can't pass legislation that fixes that 80 percent of the problem, and then see how that goes. As the axiom goes, the opposite of 'Good' is not 'Bad.' The opposite of 'Good' is 'Perfect.' Link WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's willingness to consider alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits is providing a boost for taking such cases out of the courtroom and letting experts, not juries, decide their merits.... Doctors have maintained for years that fear of being sued leads them to order unneeded tests that raise costs for everyone. In Obama, they've found a Democratic president who accepts that premise. Validation has also come from the Congressional Budget Office. In a turnaround, it recently concluded that malpractice curbs would lower the federal deficit by $54 billion over 10 years, mainly because Medicare and Medicaid wouldn't have to pay as much for defensive medicine.
Magox Posted October 20, 2009 Author Posted October 20, 2009 Thought this was interesting. A small step in the right direction, but there's still quite a gap. I just don't get why if "there's 80 percent agreement on what needs to happen" --- they can't pass legislation that fixes that 80 percent of the problem, and then see how that goes. As the axiom goes, the opposite of 'Good' is not 'Bad.' The opposite of 'Good' is 'Perfect.' Link That would be a step in the right direction, and I believe the president knows that this could be a critical issue, having said that, the majority of the liberal !@#$tards are against it, and for many of them it is a nonstarter, and they have said that they won't sign a bill that includes Tort Reform. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...on-report-says/ Two Democratic senators told CNN's "State of the Union with John King" on Sunday that regulating malpractice lawsuits is a flawed solution. "I don't think the way to go is to limit the rights of Americans who are injured by negligent or intentional conduct," Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey told CNN. "A $250,000 cap on damages, in my humble opinion, is insulting to our system of justice." Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow suggested that the Republican approach to malpractice reform was too simplistic. She said damages caps imposed in Michigan had not stemmed increases in the malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors. The only way that Tort reform gets added is if BO toughens up and lays down the law within his own party.
UConn James Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 That would be a step in the right direction, and I believe the president knows that this could be a critical issue, having said that, the majority of the liberal !@#$tards are against it, and for many of them it is a nonstarter, and they have said that they won't sign a bill that includes Tort Reform. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...on-report-says/ Two Democratic senators told CNN's "State of the Union with John King" on Sunday that regulating malpractice lawsuits is a flawed solution. "I don't think the way to go is to limit the rights of Americans who are injured by negligent or intentional conduct," Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey told CNN. "A $250,000 cap on damages, in my humble opinion, is insulting to our system of justice." Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow suggested that the Republican approach to malpractice reform was too simplistic. She said damages caps imposed in Michigan had not stemmed increases in the malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors. The only way that Tort reform gets added is if BO toughens up and lays down the law within his own party. Don't misread what was said. Obama is against capping damage awards. The article is talking about something pretty different. Independent experts would determine facts vs. allegations in cases. And lo and behold doctors will magically stop ordering test after test after test that probably isn't needed, but they do it to cover their asses. I.e. I went to an ENT doctor a couple of years ago with a case of glue ear (otitis media with effusion). He had me back to his office three times for a hearing test, and on the third wanted to do an MRI to look for a neuroma, a benign brain growth/tumor, which is diagnosed in ~2,000 people per year in the whole country. This is out-of-pocket for me. So I canceled. A few weeks later, there was a small pop in the Eustachian tube and voila, fine --- it was glue ear. The course of treatment is often wait-and-see or, in my case where it had gone on for several months --- they should do an experimental cut in the eardrum to equalize the pressure b/w the outer and middle ear, and in chronic cases, a step further with tympanostomy tubes. But this f--ker wanted to do test after test and treat me like I'm a money pinata. The article calls it "defensive medicine." I'm a little dubious about whether it will actually reduce the number of tests --- and therefore costs to the tune of $54B --- simply b/c most doctors I've seen are more interested in filling their appointment books than actually curing people. If they cure you, they lose a customer.
Magox Posted October 20, 2009 Author Posted October 20, 2009 Don't misread what was said. Obama is against capping damage awards. The article is talking about something pretty different. Independent experts would determine facts vs. allegations in cases. And lo and behold doctors will magically stop ordering test after test after test that probably isn't needed, but they do it to cover their asses. I.e. I went to an ENT doctor a couple of years ago with a case of glue ear (otitis media with effusion). He had me back to his office three times for a hearing test, and on the third wanted to do an MRI to look for a neuroma, a benign brain growth/tumor, which is diagnosed in ~2,000 people per year in the whole country. This is out-of-pocket for me. So I canceled. A few weeks later, there was a small pop in the Eustachian tube and voila, fine --- it was glue ear. The course of treatment is often wait-and-see or, in my case where it had gone on for several months --- they should do an experimental cut in the eardrum to equalize the pressure b/w the outer and middle ear, and in chronic cases, a step further with tympanostomy tubes. But this f--ker wanted to do test after test and treat me like I'm a money pinata. The article calls it "defensive medicine." I'm a little dubious about whether it will actually reduce the number of tests --- and therefore costs to the tune of $54B --- simply b/c most doctors I've seen are more interested in filling their appointment books than actually curing people. If they cure you, they lose a customer. It makes sense. I am all for solutions that make good sound sense. Tort reform would definitely drive down premiums. Defensive medicine wouldn't be practiced as much. I know this is going off topic to a certain extent, but if we want to provide more competition in the health insurance industry, THEN OPEN UP THE !@#$ING STATE LINES, so insurers can compete with one another. Why the hell aren't they proposing this? Another thing that doesn't make sense is if you want to drive down premiums, then why consider taxing the health insurers even higher than what they are being taxed? That makes no freaking sense. Same with the medical device makers.
Taro T Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 I actually am not- I believe in a government-run system for WORKING Americans, unlike a lot of super left people and others who think ALL Americans should be covered. If you don't pay in, you shouldn't be entitled to jack squat to avoid others having to pay for those who don't work. My 1st question to you on this is where do you fit in people that were covered w/ health insurance but lost their jobs; do you propose a COBRA system, a government subsidy for a COBRA system, or something else? My 2nd question to you is what would you have covered by this government-run system? Is it catastrophic care, wellness visit care, a combination, or something else? My 3rd Q is, how do you enter people into the system that when healthy shun/bypass buying health insurance but then become sick and suddenly feel the need to enter the system? Do you take all comers, regardless of the "preexisting conditions", do you require all to have insurance (even though some may be priced out), or do you propose something else? The whole idea could work if those in Washington wanted it to, but of course they will not as the lobby provides them with benefits that far outweigh doing the sensible thing. BTW, I do work for the government and I do receive benefits, and I would hope one day people like my fiance who works her butt off and can't afford health care will enjoy the same benefits. When you and your fiance tie the knot, won't she be eligible to be covered under your plan?
Adam Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 That would be a step in the right direction, and I believe the president knows that this could be a critical issue, having said that, the majority of the liberal !@#$tards are against it, and for many of them it is a nonstarter, and they have said that they won't sign a bill that includes Tort Reform. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...on-report-says/ Two Democratic senators told CNN's "State of the Union with John King" on Sunday that regulating malpractice lawsuits is a flawed solution. "I don't think the way to go is to limit the rights of Americans who are injured by negligent or intentional conduct," Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey told CNN. "A $250,000 cap on damages, in my humble opinion, is insulting to our system of justice." Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow suggested that the Republican approach to malpractice reform was too simplistic. She said damages caps imposed in Michigan had not stemmed increases in the malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors. The only way that Tort reform gets added is if BO toughens up and lays down the law within his own party. I see no real reason to cut back on malpractice suits- the concept of not doing that seems alien to me
Magox Posted October 21, 2009 Author Posted October 21, 2009 I see no real reason to cut back on malpractice suits- the concept of not doing that seems alien to me So you are suggesting that the $54 Billion that it would save is "no reason to cut back on malpractice suits"? If that is what you are suggesting, then it is precisely this attitude that is helping to contribute to the massive deficits that we are going to continue to accumulate. The words millions, billions and trillions all sound alike and they tend to lose their meaning when they are mentioned every single day in almost all the news networks, but I can assure you that $54 Billion is a lot of money and can do along way to help this economy. The $54 Billion doesn't even include the savings it could potentially eliminate from wasteful tests practiced through defensive medicine. But if that is no reason, then okaay
Magox Posted October 21, 2009 Author Posted October 21, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1025733584.html President Obama has made serial promises that he will not sign a health-care bill that "adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future, period." This was never plausible, but now we can begin to understand what he meant: Democrats plan to make ObamaCare "deficit-neutral" by moving nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the books, in the fiscal deception of the century. Later this week, or maybe next, Senate Democrats plan to vote on a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform. Rather than include the pricey $247 billion plan known on Capitol Hill as the "doc fix" as part of ObamaCare, they'll instead make this a separate contribution to the deficit, without compensating tax increases or spending cuts. Majority Leader Harry Reid explained at a press conference last week that "All we're doing is wiping the slate clean by adjusting the baseline to what is current policy. This is not new policy." bait and switch
IDBillzFan Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1025733584.html President Obama has made serial promises that he will not sign a health-care bill that "adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future, period." This was never plausible, but now we can begin to understand what he meant: Democrats plan to make ObamaCare "deficit-neutral" by moving nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the books, in the fiscal deception of the century. Later this week, or maybe next, Senate Democrats plan to vote on a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform. Rather than include the pricey $247 billion plan known on Capitol Hill as the "doc fix" as part of ObamaCare, they'll instead make this a separate contribution to the deficit, without compensating tax increases or spending cuts. Majority Leader Harry Reid explained at a press conference last week that "All we're doing is wiping the slate clean by adjusting the baseline to what is current policy. This is not new policy." bait and switch I'd believe this if it weren't for the fact that the WSJ isn't really a news organization.
Magox Posted October 21, 2009 Author Posted October 21, 2009 I'd believe this if it weren't for the fact that the WSJ isn't really a news organization. Good point LA Billz, so here is another point of view, from a liberal perspective, that supports the current health care plan that is being proposed from the house and admits that it is budget trickery and that would in fact add to the deficit as I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/doc...han_the_senates The last House committee to work on comprehensive health reform finished at the end of July. The last Senate committee (Sen. Max Baucus's Senate Finance Committee) finished last week. But the House has not been idle. News comes today that an initial score from the Congressional Budget Office says the House has refined its bill to only cost $871 billion over 10 years. Of course that is likely to get overshadowed by the train wreck in the Senate concerning Medicare's "Doc Fix." So many commentators are focused on the political clumsiness of pushing a separate bill in the Senate to fix the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) that they may miss what this Three Stooges-esque vignette tells us about the policy strength of these House and Senate bills. Sadly, the Senate Finance Committee bill, which will be the basis of the Senate bill for all things Medicare, does not fix SGR. All it does is put the same old "stupid accounting trick" of a one year moratorium on it, and then budgets for it to take effect every year thereafter. Which, of course, it won't. But that means the $829 billion total for the Finance bill is also fudged. When Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan proposed S. 1776, a standalone bill that would permanently fix SGR in much the same way that the House bill would, at a similar $247 billion price tag, and Majority Leader Harry Reid fast-tracked it to be considered this week, you couldn't help but notice that they included absolutely no way to pay for it. That's the main reason why this bill seems doomed to failure, since moderate Democrats, including the always peripatetic Kent Conrad, are livid at the thought of more deficit spending, particularly on health care. But even Kent Conrad knows this cut will never take place. It's a political fight over an imaginary number, rather than stepping up and finding a way to fix the problem. Of course, as part of a Senate bill that includes a convoluted "free rider" provision instead of a useful employer mandate, a feeble "co-op" provision instead of a cost-saving public option, fewer subsidies for families to buy insurance, weaker benefits packages, etc. etc. In summary, when faced with the choice of an $755 billion bill that used the same accounting tricks to hide SGR or a $1 trillion bill that would actually fix the problem, the House bill stepped up to fix the problem, even if it meant getting pummeled. When faced with an $829 billion bill with an accounting trick or a $1.1 trillion bill that would actually fix the problem, the Senate tried to have their accounting trick and eat it too by trying -- and likely failing -- to ram home a standalone bill that undermined their credibility on fiscal responsibility. Once again, we have Senators more concerned with solving the political problems of the United States Senate than solving the real health care problems of the United States.
Recommended Posts