T1B

Truman wrote:You want intelligent discourse on this subject, Mikey? Spare us the Keith Olbermann talking points, read the fucking bill, and we can have some....

Do you like the system we have?

...And some might suggest that fear is brought to you by the same people that took over our banks; co-opted our lending institutions; stole two American automobile manufacturers; believe that they can print money and spend ourselves out of a recession; and saw unemployment nearly double under their watch.

Bush's 8 years are not even over till later next month.

BTW, 29 Democrat senators voted for your "endless" war.

Huh?

Moving Sale wrote:Bush's 8 years are not even over till later next month.

Well, he musta wentdown to the islands and got himself a nice tan, back some time in january, cause the dude who's been playing POTUS looks a bit darker.

Moving Sale wrote:

Truman wrote:You want intelligent discourse on this subject, Mikey? Spare us the Keith Olbermann talking points, read the fucking bill, and we can have some....

Do you like the system we have?

Democracy? Wrong question, Counselor. It is socialism that I find reprehensible.

[lowhangingfruit]Clearly, Reagan's message passed right over your head...[/lowhangingfruit] Cue snare.

But I'll play:

So which system would that be, Barrister? The tort system? Not so much. But a National Referendum on tort reform would certainly go a long way towards curtailing rising health care costs....

Bush's 8 years are not even over till later next month.

Care to expand on such brilliance, Solicitor, or should we allow your non-sequitur to stand on its own merits?

Moving Sale wrote:

Truman wrote:BTW, 29 Democrat senators voted for your "endless" war.

Huh?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

To the Victors go the spoils, but even the Dems can't rewrite history.

R-Jack wrote:

Bush's 8 years are not even over till later next month.

So 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch?

apparently so.

The "system" I would like to see actually would incorporate some of what the euros so. A euro can walk into a pharmacy and actually get certain controlled drugs directly from the pharmacist, or at least that's what I have been told (by honest to god real life euros). I like this. It makes sense and it cuts out the middle man. A pharmacist is a reasonably bright, well trained dude. No reason he shouldn't be able to diagnose run of the mill ear infections.

Another part of their system of course, is the tort end of it. Good luck getting the dems to believe in that sort of change

I also think our system suffers from a large degree of over regulation in the form of requiring an MD to see folks for every day simple shit.

We have seen some improvement in this area. I find that over the last 10 years, I end up seeing a PA or NP moer often and MDs less often. I am perfectly fine with this. Give me a really sharp PA any day over a mediocre MD. The military has been following such a system for a long time with pretty good success. When I was on active duty and had some minor ailment I'd go down to medical and always be seen by a corpsman first. He'd be a 2nd class PO or better, so he had plenty of OJT along with some formal training, but, he'd do just fine. On deployed submarines all you have is a corpsman. That fukkin' dude distributes meds and is even trained to do surgery if need be.

Lets use MDs for actual tricky shit.

We could do this with substantial changes to our very cumbersome regulatory system. Of course like any other guild or union, those in the system don't like the idea of a flood of lesser qualified labor getting into their racket.

The result of this is regular run of the mill every day bullshit would be cheap. Cheap enough that the large majority of folks out there could pay for these services directly (what a concept!).

Complex shit requiring expensive equipment and the time of dudes with lots of letters after their names would still be expensive. But, with all the other bullshit out of the way, insurance for these occasions would be reasonably priced.

Mikey wrote:I'm not entirely in favor of the the whole program being proposed by the Democrats (it's not Obama's plan, really). In fact I'll admit that I don't know entirely what it comprises, as I'm sure neither do you nor anybody else around here.

Well, that's kinda the major problem here, ain't it? Obama proposes to fundamentally change the American health care system...yet, he has no plan. Yet, this was the man blasting Bush for supposedly not having a post-war plan in Iraq. This started out as a debate to change how health care is provided and has quickly turned into how health care is paid for. And, still, we do not know what Obama is actually proposing to do. And, yet, he's the guy who is taking this issue on...supposedly.

But if people have to go to the emergency room for "basic health treatment" when they could have been treated much more efficiently by a visit to the doctor's office, which they couldn't afford (who do you think ends up paying for these expensive emergency room visits in the long run?), there's a problem.

Of course it's a problem. But Obama's rhetoric...cuz there's nothing there but rhetoric...doesn't address this problem. If this was the problem being addressed there's no need to nationalize the entire health care system.

If working people have to wait in line for days to get minor problems treated by volunteer doctors and dentists because they can't afford to go to a doctor or dentist, much less buy insurance or even qualify for coverage, there's a problem.

Again, this problem is not resolved by transforming the entire health care system.

Hopefully we can at least agree that there's a problem. If we can agree that there's a problem, then let's aggree to discuss it rationally

We can discuss it rationally. But Obama and the Democrats have refused to do so. Obama ain't interested in rational discourse, that's why he speaks only in rhetorical flourishes and demands that people who disagree with him to get out of the way.

The strategery of the "loyal opposition" is to sow fear of "death panels", rationing, etc. etc. and send people out, or at least encourage them, to show up at any place where rational people would try to discuss the problem and possible solutions, and create such a loud and obnoxious disturbance that discussion is impossible.

Sorry, dickhead, but the right is not the only guily party here in organizing people to oppose public policies. As well, it ain't the righties that has George Soros pumping tens of millions into comprehensive ad campaigns to support Obama.

BTW, wtf happened to community organizing being such a high calling? I guess community organizing is only deserving of high praise when it advocates progressive policies, eh?

They don't want a solution, they want the status quo.

Who the fuck is "they?" Not the conservatives at National Review, not Gingrich's group, not at the actual conservative institutions that have been preaching reform for years now. Sure, some of the foolish people at these protests really have nothing but anger. However, we have a fringe jus like you do and to pretend otherwise, as you seem to be, is asinine.

They want the folks that they see as their enemies to fail at any cost. Sure everybody has their First Amendment rights, but what good is that bullshit doing anybody but the entrenched interests?

Asshole, the entrenched interests in this debate are supporting Obamacare. Big Pharma, unions, and, according to Obama, the AARP, too. What the fuck are you trying to pull here?

I've got great insurance through my employer.

Which is the central point of this problem.

I have an HSA where I can determine what I want to spend and where I want to spend it (though Blue Shield still determines what applies to my deductible), but I'm not happy with the status quo. The cost to my employer is way too high, and I've recently been on the other side. I couldn't get individual insurance at any price because of mild hypertension. I was denied over and over again. If I had gotten injured in some way that was completely unrelated I could have been financially ruined for life.[/quote]

Life's a bitch. But what Obama is proposing and what you appear to be defending doesn't address this problem.

If 70% of the people agree that there's a problem (don't ask me for a "link" for that number it's a wild ass guess) and 10% are violently opposed enough to create such a disturbance that any rational discussion is impossible, then who is going to win, amigo?

Violently opposed? The violence we're seeing is coming from your side. Whether Black Panthers patrolling voting precincts with night sticks or SEIU thugs beating up black Republicans. Yet, we're the violent ones.

Sorry, but the opposition is real, reasonable, and legitimate. What you and the Democrats are proposing to do to deal with a problem that affects a tiny number of people is completely ludicrous.

Mikey wrote:Not advocating FREE HEALTH CARE for anybody.

But they already get FREE HEALTH CARE by walking into any emergency room because the hospitals are by law not allowed to turn them away, and it costs a hell of a lot more there than in a doctor's office. And guess who ends up paying for that FREE HEALTH CARE? Hint...it's you and me.

So, as long as they are going to get FREE HEALTH CARE wouldn't it make sense to make it as EFFICIENT as possible?

Moron, why do you completely ignore facts in this debate. These people that are going to hospital emergency rooms for treatment...they are choosing to forego all the supposedly wonderful preventative treatment (of course, because that costs more than the bennies it provides, another fact in this debate) in order to have cell phones, cable tv, etc. And if they are truly poor than they most likely already are eligible for govt assistance yet choose not to subscribe/enroll. There's like 15% - 20% of the total number of uninsured who are already eligible for govt assistance that do not enroll for a variety of reasons.

Yet, to listen to you, we must totally and fundamentally alter one-sixth of the US economy to deal with this tiny problem.

Bullshit.

88 wrote:I would enjoy a rational discussion and a fair consideration of all ideas. But that isn't what we're getting. The Democratic Party has been waiting to shove some kind of government medicine/health care program down our throats since Hilleroo failed to get it done in the early 1990's.[/quiote]

Uh, just a inor correction here...the liberals/progressives, have been trying to force socialized medicine on us since the 1960s. Hell, Reagan was criticizing in the mid-60s,

As you point out, no one knows what this plan really includes. But we are told that whatever it includes, it has to be passed before the August recess.

Funny how Mikey wouldn't bother to address this...nope, he just attacks opponents are violent gangsters.

smackaholic wrote:I also think our system suffers from a large degree of over regulation in the form of requiring an MD to see folks for every day simple shit

I think this is a minor problem of regulation. The major problem over state regulations are two-fold - regulations requiring insurers to include specific coverages in all plans issued in a state no matter the subscriber's need and regulations prohibiting insurers from selling insurance in states where they are not located. An example of the first, the State of Michigan requirers all insurers in the state to cover diabetic supplies and equipment in all insurance plans sold. The second regulatory provision, obviously, reduces competition for plans and subscribers.

The result of this is regular run of the mill every day bullshit would be cheap. Cheap enough that the large majority of folks out there could pay for these services directly (what a concept!).

And that's the major problem in the system...people not actually paying for health care services. Most of us do not pay the full freight or even partial freight of actual care services. $10, $40, $50 per prescription when the script actually costs over $100. $10 office visit co-pays when the services rendered exceed a couple hundred bucks. Shit, the problem grows every day as the government employs more and more and more people because public sector benefits programs are as generous or even moreso than yeserday's auto/union bennies plans. $5/$10 prescription drug co-pays, $100/$200 annual deductibles, maybe $100 per month employee contributions towards premiums, etc. Add to this public assistance people and those who choose not to enroll in public assistance programs = lots of people not paying for their health care.

The cost of health care is as high as it is primarily, imo, because we over-consume such services and we over-consume those services because we ain't paying for them.

Imagine if we treated auto insurance like health care with AAA, State Farm, etc. paying for brake jobs, oil changes, etc. Ain't this what Obama is proposing with his preventative medicine bullshit? Answer is yes, It doesn't matter that preventative maintenance is always more expensive.

Complex shit requiring expensive equipment and the time of dudes with lots of letters after their names would still be expensive. But, with all the other bullshit out of the way, insurance for these occasions would be reasonably priced.

If only the Democrats and Obama were interested in merely fixing the cost of medical insurance...

JMak wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I also think our system suffers from a large degree of over regulation in the form of requiring an MD to see folks for every day simple shit

I think this is a minor problem of regulation. The major problem over state regulations are two-fold - regulations requiring insurers to include specific coverages in all plans issued in a state no matter the subscriber's need and regulations prohibiting insurers from selling insurance in states where they are not located. An example of the first, the State of Michigan requirers all insurers in the state to cover diabetic supplies and equipment in all insurance plans sold. The second regulatory provision, obviously, reduces competition for plans and subscribers.

The result of this is regular run of the mill every day bullshit would be cheap. Cheap enough that the large majority of folks out there could pay for these services directly (what a concept!).

And that's the major problem in the system...people not actually paying for health care services. Most of us do not pay the full freight or even partial freight of actual care services. $10, $40, $50 per prescription when the script actually costs over $100. $10 office visit co-pays when the services rendered exceed a couple hundred bucks. Shit, the problem grows every day as the government employs more and more and more people because public sector benefits programs are as generous or even moreso than yeserday's auto/union bennies plans. $5/$10 prescription drug co-pays, $100/$200 annual deductibles, maybe $100 per month employee contributions towards premiums, etc. Add to this public assistance people and those who choose not to enroll in public assistance programs = lots of people not paying for their health care.

The cost of health care is as high as it is primarily, imo, because we over-consume such services and we over-consume those services because we ain't paying for them.

Imagine if we treated auto insurance like health care with AAA, State Farm, etc. paying for brake jobs, oil changes, etc. Ain't this what Obama is proposing with his preventative medicine bullshit? Answer is yes, It doesn't matter that preventative maintenance is always more expensive.

Complex shit requiring expensive equipment and the time of dudes with lots of letters after their names would still be expensive. But, with all the other bullshit out of the way, insurance for these occasions would be reasonably priced.

If only the Democrats and Obama were interested in merely fixing the cost of medical insurance...

I don't think overconsumption is the problem.

If it was simply overconsumption, GPs would be busy as hell.....and rich.

They aren't.

Well, they are busy, but, they sure as hell ain't rich. My bro-in-law is an RN. He knows quite a few docs and he tells me that regular old GPs are paid shit. He says that if they clear 70 or 80 grand after they pay for insurance and the logistical army needed to hound insurance companies for payment, they are doing OK.

When I was a kid, docs made pretty decent change. And their fees were lower.

How's that work?

It's because you went and saw the doc and you wrote him a fukking check for 20 bucks. Out of that 20 bucks, he had to pay a receptionist maybe one assistant and a little bit of insurance . After everybody got paid, there might be 10 bucks left for him. See 4 people an hour and you're making $40/hr. Not bad change for 1975. Today, I write him a 25 dollar copay. He then has his office full of "medical billing specialists" do their magic to squeeze a few more dollars out of the insurance company. All these folks need to get paid out of that office visit along with a couple medical assistants, so, there ain't really a whole lot left for the good doctor.

Despite Weasel's squirming and evading, the real issue in this national debate is that of hysterical ignorance on the part of those "anti-socialists" who have started to regularly bring guns to the town hall meetings as though this second amendment right might be necessarily invoked--such is the threat of the socialists! :twisted:

Check out this astonishing example of robust ignorance in action. The Israeli guy is painfully making his point about the Israeli national health plan--and some insane right wing (Weasel's mom) bitch starts going off like an alarm clock: "Heil Hitler!" And when he confronts her--and to his credit stays on message--that he had to wait two hours in an American hospital waiting room, and was told it would cost $8,000--she sarcastically says, "boo-hoo!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 62554.html

As to why Weasel or anyone else would side with the giant pharmaceutical corporations, this remains a mystery. He won't say--anymore than those ignorant crackers with guns at the meetings.