PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Healthcare Reform Plan


bcampbe7
07-22-2009, 04:02 PM
Let's discuss...

Please keep the discussion to topics regarding healthcare and this particular plan.

I would like to hear from those that support this plan with specific reasons why they support it.

I also think it would be great to hear from those that live in a country that offers a form of govertment run healthcare.

BriEOD
07-22-2009, 04:31 PM
Are you serious?:D

captain planet
07-22-2009, 04:34 PM
Ahhh, let me ease my chair back, put up my feet, get a cup of coffee, and enjoy!

:popcorn::popcorn:

bcampbe7
07-22-2009, 04:35 PM
I hear crickets...

flipper
07-22-2009, 04:37 PM
This outta be good

Ski-me
07-22-2009, 04:38 PM
There sure is a lot of negative reactions I've heard lately over the news. I too, am interested in those that support this plan and some of the reasons.

I for one, am very concerned how quickly Obama is trying to get this thing pushed through. Reckless, Expensive and Dangerous come to mind :rolleyes:.

I personally don't like the idea or plan.

flipper
07-22-2009, 04:40 PM
I just don't like the whole "You bust your arse at work 14 hrs a day so others can have a good life" attitude. Why can't they bust their own arse? I sit at work some days and think "I'm just working for the next guy".

JimN
07-22-2009, 05:03 PM
Why can't they bust their own arse?

Because they're helping people.

Actually, I mean they're making us help people.

justinlkgb
07-22-2009, 05:11 PM
I wish I could weigh in but so much back and forth I don't know what or better yet who; to believe anymore...

RexDog1
07-22-2009, 05:13 PM
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Jorski
07-22-2009, 05:16 PM
No opinion...just some data to chew on:

Country's health care costs as a percentage of GDP (it is now around 17% of GDP)

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/health_spend.png



The World Health Organization ranks the US health system as 37th best in the world despite spending the most money in the world on health care.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei

To see the complete list: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

bigmac
07-22-2009, 05:24 PM
When we ration health care in the same way that Canada does (and that's really the only way that care will get cheaper), care will be cheaper, but you wakeboarders will wait 8-12 months for your ACL reconstruction. Be careful out there, you shredders...

Anyway...given the rates of obesity alone in the US, I think it's amazing that the US would even be 37th. I'll bet it worse than that today, nine years later...

Jorski
07-22-2009, 05:57 PM
When I (a slalomer) tore apart my shoulder, my wait for re-construction was exactly 2 days up here in the great white north...don't know about the wait for wakeboarders though.;)

In Canada, if you need something urgently you will receive prompt and excellent care. That said, if you have something that is a nuisance, it will take a considerable amount of time to get it taken care of. Yet we do ration a lot of services that are nice but not immediately necessary such as knee or hip replacement surgeries. Heck, we are pretty stingy on the MRIs as well.


Your comments on obesity are particularly salient, all of us in every country needs to focus on health and disease prevention.

I have read recently about approximately 30% of medical spending occurs in the last year of life; these are not easy decisions to make, but if medical expenses sail through 20% of GDP it will break your economy.

While no system is perfect, there must be some hybrid, middle ground in between purely socialized medicine and the current system.

bigmac
07-22-2009, 06:18 PM
Waiting by specialty - Canada 2008
Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits (i.e., between referral from a
general practitioner (GP) and treatment) existed for medical oncology (4.6 weeks), radiation
oncology (5.8 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (7.3 weeks). Conversely,
patients waited longest between a GP visit and orthopaedic surgery (36.7
weeks), plastic surgery (35.5 weeks), and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks). There were large
decreases between 2007 and 2008 in the waits for internal medicine (-3.9 weeks), ophthalmology
(-2.2 weeks), otolaryngology (-2.1 weeks), orthopaedic surgery (-1.4
weeks), urology (-1.4 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (-1.1 weeks), while
the wait time for gynaecology (-0.3 weeks) decreased slightly. These decreases were
offset by a deterioration for patients receiving treatment in neurosurgery (+4.5 weeks),
general surgery (+1.7 weeks), plastic surgery (+0.7 weeks), medical oncology (+0.4
weeks), and radiation oncology (+0.1 weeks).

These are the 2008 data from the Fraser Insitute Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/waitingyourturn2008.pdf)

It's what Americans have to look forward to in exchange for a lower percentage healthcare expense vs GDP. Jorski's anecdote about his shoulder surgery appears to be outside the norm in the Great White North...

bigmac
07-22-2009, 06:30 PM
"Urgency" of medical care depends a lot on who defines it. As Canada defines it, and as President Obama would like to define it, Tex's problems with his knee after a jump gone awry wouldn't be urgent. I'm sure Tex would rather cut US spending on healthcare in exchange for using a walker/cane/wheelchair for 9 months while he waited for surgery. I mean, it's no problem for us...health care would cost less, and since that 36 week wait for his reconstruction isn't life threatening, it won't hurt our quality statistics if we're ever reviewed by the WHO again. I mean, pain pills are a lot cheaper than surgery....right Tex?

TMCNo1
07-22-2009, 06:42 PM
49614

49615

49616

bigmac
07-22-2009, 06:44 PM
and YOU, No.1....how old are YOU? How are your hips, knees? If you're over 65, I hope they're in good shape -- they're gonna have to last awhile (forever).

Jabrew
07-22-2009, 06:52 PM
the only way to have it work and be fair to all would be the health care the senators receive, sign the rest of us to their plan and it will work, but just like social security they have a separate plan which makes sense and will be there when they need it.

TMCNo1
07-22-2009, 07:06 PM
and YOU, No.1....how old are YOU? How are your hips, knees? If you're over 65, I hope they're in good shape -- they're gonna have to last awhile (forever).

62 and so far so good.

JimN
07-22-2009, 09:40 PM
I wish I could weigh in but so much back and forth I don't know what or better yet who; to believe anymore...

As long as he's losing support, I'm not as PO'd as I was. Now, the headline I read showed that more have questions about the accuracy of his claims.

Jorski
07-22-2009, 09:47 PM
Bigmac,

I would be wary of using any data provided by the Fraser Institute. They are a right wing think tank and you can pretty much guess where there "data" (mining) will lie regarding any issue prior to the release of any report.

In any case, their study certainly doesn't jive with the experience I had with my shoulder injury nor with the many experiences of my friends and family. In my case, anecdotally, I injured my shoulder on a Friday, and was immediately seen and diagnosed at a local clinic. Saw an othopod the following Tueday, and had surgery two days after that...so Tex might be better off than you think in Canada. I have had relatives with cancer and cardiac issues and they didn't have any wait times like those described either.

Now, I do live in a large city (Toronto) in Ontario, and one's experience can vary from province to province...health care is deliverred provincially. There are also significant issues with rural medicine and getting doctors to go and work in those areas.

Our system is certainly not perfect, but you should take anything from the Fraser institute with a giant grain of salt. ;) I definitely don't feel endangered living in Canada, and I suspect that is true for people who live in most of the rest of the western world who have nationalized health care.

Interestingly, one of the biggest problems in Canada has been resistance to allowing two tiers of health care. They have largely (but not completely) prevented any sort of private delivery of health care services. That is one way wait times could be seriously reduced in our country, but our government leaders haven't found it politically expediant.

This is unlikely to occur in your country, so I don't think dire predictions of "wait times like Canada's" are likely to happen in the U.S., you guys just don't have the resistance to private delivery that exists here.

Warning: another anecdote coming...a friend of mine sent his mother-in-law to the Mayo Clinic where she underwent some involved diagnostic testing and a surgey...bottom line, a $200,000 bill ! Wow.

Ryan
07-22-2009, 10:13 PM
You asked.

I'm all for some reform, but am not sold on the Obama plan.

I enjoy working for a company that makes some very successful products sold to both the medical retail industries. Profit sharing has always been pleasant, but I believe that our current privatized insurance system will not sustain prescriptions that cost $400 for 10 pills or products or ultra high margins in 8-15 years. Something has to be done to stop the financial bleeding from treating the un-insured. It was shocking over the last five years to see so many ER's in SoCA close because they were too much of a financial liability for the hospitals to sustain them. I hate that my wife and I have to check our PPO for cost of having a child as we weigh the decision for a 4th, and I don't want my kids to live with a system where medical treatments cost dumb amounts of money. My attitude won't change even if my parent company sells of my nutrition brand tomorrow.

With a brother in law and fam who is in the middle of losing his $1.8MM home in the OC because of a forlorn medical bankruptcy from pneumonia and back surgery shortly thereafter. I hope to God that none of you have to go through that. I want a federalized medical system with opt-in for premium elective treatments because I don't want medical technology to suck funding from younger generations with the likes of keeping people around to 145 yrs old just because we can. Live your life and get your soul off the road to make space for your grandkids.

So, how do I still get the quality and quick service I demand when I want to subsidies others? First, I have just one really simple wish...I just want to overhaul the Republican party, drop the God complex (even though I'm as religious as Mitt), lean out social programs to pay for the big-one, social medicine, put some money into a serious analysis of the top 30 GDP countries and take the best of what works in their healthcare system and make the best damm program in the world and kick start a political party that is savvy enough to improve lives. I think I could win the next election on a platform like that (but I'd need a good speech writer, this post is proof).

I don't want to re-create the wheel, just give the system a transmission change. Let's get nano-technology rolling for real to more efficiently deliver medicines & compounds to suffering organs/tissue. Particularly because my company and others like it will become less relevant or fail as investors quickly shell off their stock if we don't change the game soon. And dang it I need medicine to be around when I'm 70 (not 145) and want a new knee (or nano-bots to replace tissue) so that I can keep skiing. And I need smart people to be continue to be enticed by lucrative careers so they'll go to college and become my smart doctor...Is that too much to ask for??? It can work! We can get started now with new legislation barring senators/congressmen from competing for one-liner sensationalism and fix some real problems.

I tried to keep it short, really I did.

JimN
07-22-2009, 10:24 PM
I would be wary of using any data provided by the Fraser Institute. They are a right wing think tank and you can pretty much guess where there "data" (mining) will lie regarding any issue prior to the release of any report.

That would obviously mirror the advice from a right winger about using a left wing think tank as a data source.

I'm still amazed Russ Feingold voted Yea.

h2oskiluvr
07-22-2009, 10:54 PM
I was just at a conference where I heard a Department of Education official state, "Your government is working for you." and it sent shivers down my spine. Simply put, the public sector, especially monopolies, can not come even close to competing with the private sector. All government monopolies fail and so will any attempt to successfully nationalize health care. As a fiscal conservative I can say that the direction we have gone makes me literally numb. I hope the U.S. wakes up in two years and restores some balance to our government.

6ballsisall
07-22-2009, 11:39 PM
As long as he's losing support, I'm not as PO'd as I was. Now, the headline I read showed that more have questions about the accuracy of his claims.

The word Blowhard seems to describe him well IMO

JimN
07-23-2009, 12:00 AM
Well, he's confident, I'll give him that.

bigmac
07-23-2009, 07:21 AM
Bigmac,

I would be wary of using any data provided by the Fraser Institute. They are a right wing think tank and you can pretty much guess where there "data" (mining) will lie regarding any issue prior to the release of any report.


Don't worry, I also have several anecdotes.

Jesus_Freak
07-23-2009, 12:32 PM
...drop the God complex...

Please elaborate.

stuartmcnair
07-23-2009, 01:03 PM
this is a long video but it is pretty good...

How it works in Canada (http://www.pjtv.com/video/Louder_With_Crowder/__PJTV_Undercover%3A_Steven_Crowder_Investigates_W hy_CanadaCare_SucksWill_ObamaCare_Be_Any_Better%3F/2153/)

What I would like to see is a system where you could opt out of certain coverage. For instance, I don't need coverage for certain things like substance abuse treatment or maternity care. I would rather pay for any doctors visits out of pocket and have a catastrophic policy in case of a serious accident or expensive illness.

My 2 cents...

TX.X-30 fan
07-23-2009, 01:16 PM
Ok so I should believe WHO over any other group that has studied this problem.

What will break this country is this plan!


Why is it people from great Britan and canada come here for medical care if as you say we suck hind teet???

TX.X-30 fan
07-23-2009, 01:19 PM
This is so stupid as to be laughable.

OK guys pick the country you want to go to with any cancer or heart problem???

France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica

bigmac
07-23-2009, 01:20 PM
I note from the press conference last night that BHO has gone from calling this "Health Care Reform" to "Health Insurance Reform".

Not that this changes the inevitable end result (higher cost, lower quality, rationing of health care), but it's interesting to see the shift in labelling as a means of getting the public to buy in to something they have been opposed to thus far in the debate.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but if you were Al Queda and you wanted to strike a crushing blow against the United States (more effective than flying a couple of airplanes into a couple of buildings), what better way to do it than have your highly placed sleeper agent overspend, increase national debt, nationalize the banking industry, nationalize manufacturing, nationalize health care, with the end result being inflation, worldwide loss of confidence in US T-bills? Wham! From worldwide economic leader to debtor nation all in the time frame of one presidential term.

Just sayin'

TX.X-30 fan
07-23-2009, 01:21 PM
Global climate change

bigmac
07-23-2009, 01:31 PM
Global climate change

Ooh! Good one! I forgot to toss in the cost and effect of that initiative.

TX.X-30 fan
07-23-2009, 01:37 PM
I think the warming in global warming lost some of its push after the last few winters so it needed to be couched in a different light.

Jorski
07-23-2009, 02:00 PM
The UN's IPCC was formed in 1988...

The acronym stands for:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...umm, no one changed the name of anything.

Still, back on health care it is becoming increasingly amusing how medical care in Canada is being misrepresented by those who are opposed to Obama's plan - which has almost zero similarity at all to canada's health care system. You know how crazy us Canadians are...banks that don't fail, a medical care system that we can afford...we are just nuts!

Clearly, this is has become a purely political battle (on both sides) that has very little bearing on improving either the cost nor the delivery of health care.

On the point about why some Canadians and British seek health care in the US....they tend to go to the top facilities in your country. I don't think a single Canadian would suggest that the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins or the Cleveland Clinic etc are not outstanding medical centers. Yet, at the same time, I don't think that many would argue that they represent the average level of care in your country either.

Ayhow...I guess that we are all so busy living longer in Canada that we don't notice our awful medical system.:D

Oh yeah and that video is pretty funny..the guy goes to an emergency ward with nothing wrong with him and is surprised that he will have to wait to see a doctor? It does make for good television though.

JimN
07-23-2009, 02:05 PM
I note from the press conference last night that BHO has gone from calling this "Health Care Reform" to "Health Insurance Reform".

Not that this changes the inevitable end result (higher cost, lower quality, rationing of health care), but it's interesting to see the shift in labelling as a means of getting the public to buy in to something they have been opposed to thus far in the debate.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but if you were Al Queda and you wanted to strike a crushing blow against the United States (more effective than flying a couple of airplanes into a couple of buildings), what better way to do it than have your highly placed sleeper agent overspend, increase national debt, nationalize the banking industry, nationalize manufacturing, nationalize health care, with the end result being inflation, worldwide loss of confidence in US T-bills? Wham! From worldwide economic leader to debtor nation all in the time frame of one presidential term.

Just sayin'

Has anyone seen or heard any details for his Health Insurance Exchange? W t F is that, a co-op? This isn't a freakin' farmer's market, it's health insurance! Apparently, he got too much resistance from the hospitals and clinics already.

JimN
07-23-2009, 02:20 PM
The UN's IPCC was formed in 1988...

The acronym stands for:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...umm, no one changed the name of anything.

Still, back on health care it is becoming increasingly amusing how medical care in Canada is being misrepresented by those who are opposed to Obama's plan - which has alomost no similarity at all to canada's health care system.

Clearly, this is has become a purely political battle (on both sides) that has very little bearing on improving either the cost nor the delivery of health care.

On the point about why some Canadians and British seek health care in the US....they tend to go to the top facilities in your country. I don't think a single Canadian would suggest that the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins or the Cleveland Clinic etc are not outstanding medical centers. Yet, at the same time, I don't think that many would argue that they represent the average level of care in your country either.

Ayhow...I guess that we are all so busy living longer in Canada that we don't notice our awful medical system.:D


First of all, I hope 21 years made a difference in the level of knowledge about the climate changes- the changes themselves aren't even the same and we all know nothing that large could remain constant fro that long. 21 years ago- Care to show how relevant it is now?

Second, there's not a dam thing funny about this. Stupid people voted for someone they knew almost nothing about, trotting out a program he didn't explain in great detail and a large portion of the population voted for him ONLY because he's half black and it would make history if he won. Oh, it's making history, all right.

When a President wants to make sweeping changes in the way a country does almost everything, you're damn right it's a political battle! He and his mob are the worst thing to come along in decades. "We live in the greatest nation in history. Now, vote for me and help me change it!". "We need to reform________ and while I won't give (m)any details, I'm going to make it happen really fast". That's no way to do what's right for a country of 5, let alone 300 Million. Mobocracy rules now, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Doctors will either do the work they are passionate about or go where the money is. Not the first time a professional did that and it won't be the last. If medical professionals are suddenly in a position where they have no choice in where they work, they'll either change their studies or get out of the industry. Wouldn't be the first time for that, either. Then, the average level of competency would slide all over. The point you're ignoring is that most cases don't need the highest level of care- it's only the serious illness and injuries that do. Having all hospitals in the position of being able to handle ANY case is one of the reasons health care costs are so high in SE Wisconsin. Aurora Health Care is the main provider and since they're pervasive, it's hard to stay in the area and go to another provider. Doesn't leave many choices- either pay the price or go where it's cheaper. It's not necessarily better but when they install all of the newest high tech diagnostic equipment in every hospital, the costs will increase whether they have qualified staffing in place, or not.

Your last statement- how much longer, and how can you be sure it's due to the level of care and not on people making healthier decisions over the long term?

The comment about living longer strikes me as being similar to a little kid sticking their tongue out at another on a playground. Nice. real nice.

Tomsinamerica
07-23-2009, 02:25 PM
Having lived in England most of my life, I'm pretty familiar with socialized health care. I'm also familiar with the incomprehensible inefficiency of the system. The NHS in England is fundamentally flawed an will probably bankrupt the country.... With that said...

I believe that everyone deserves a fundamental basic level of health care as a human right. Sure, right now, I'm employed, I have my health coverage and don't lose much sleep if something went wrong however, the moment I lose that job and that health cover because I can no longer afford it... I'd much prefer to get sick back in England. Now... I have no intention of losing my job but in these times, you never can tell. While I acknowledge that any system of socialized health care is open to some element of abuse from the lazy f***wits who continue to suck from a system, I would rather thethe system was in place so that the single mother of two can get the health care she deserves as her human right.

If the USA learned from the UK's enormous mistakes, it could work here. Of course as in England you could always supplement your basic health care with private care if you want to make sure that you're spending less time on waiting lists.

Long story short, I'm in favor of socialized health care as a theory... It's just really hard to achieve in reality.

chudson
07-23-2009, 02:39 PM
Here's your new doctor........................
49647

JimN
07-23-2009, 02:40 PM
Having lived in England most of my life, I'm pretty familiar with socialized health care. I'm also familiar with the incomprehensible inefficiency of the system. The NHS in England is fundamentally flawed an will probably bankrupt the country.... With that said...

I believe that everyone deserves a fundamental basic level of health care as a human right. Sure, right now, I'm employed, I have my health coverage and don't lose much sleep if something went wrong however, the moment I lose that job and that health cover because I can no longer afford it... I'd much prefer to get sick back in England. Now... I have no intention of losing my job but in these times, you never can tell. While I acknowledge that any system of socialized health care is open to some element of abuse from the lazy f***wits who continue to suck from a system, I would rather thethe system was in place so that the single mother of two can get the health care she deserves as her human right.

If the USA learned from the UK's enormous mistakes, it could work here. Of course as in England you could always supplement your basic health care with private care if you want to make sure that you're spending less time on waiting lists.

Long story short, I'm in favor of socialized health care as a theory... It's just really hard to achieve in reality.

I think you should have placed 'money-grubbing' in front of 'lazy f***wits'.

I'd like to see a better way to make it easy for people to have decent health care but there are a lot of variables in this-

-Will the people in health care take the time/make the effort to do their job well?
-Will the people entrusted to manage the facilities do it according to protocol and not skimp on bare necessities?
-Will the Government leave it alone, instead of micromanaging it from ten layers of personnel away?
-Will people who see this as their personal gold mine step back for a second and look at it from the patient's POV?
-Will Congress and the POTUS stop thinking they know what's best for everyone, in every situation?

Personally, I think people need to get off their lazy azz and do something other than watch TV and play video games. Sitting around, eating more than a Third World Country in a weekend isn't healthy, watching "reality TV" (yeah?) about who lost the most weight and cried the most about it is far from what those people need. They need to look at their own pathetic lives, decide what they like (if anything) and dislike, so they can change into what they want to be. The problem is that most people don't want to change because it's uncharted territory for them.

JimN
07-23-2009, 02:42 PM
Here's your new doctor........................
49647

Nope- here's mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqImkDgDwHU

Jorski
07-23-2009, 03:28 PM
Your last statement- how much longer, and how can you be sure it's due to the level of care and not on people making healthier decisions over the long term?

Re: life expectancy...Canadian men live about 3 years longer and women about 2 years longer than their American counterparts.

Oh, I am fairly confident that lifestyle is the single biggest impact on life expectancy. Just pointing out that if our health care system was really as terrible as it is being described in this debate, you would think that we would be dropping like flies!


The point you're ignoring is that most cases don't need the highest level of care- it's only the serious illness and injuries that do

Actually, I would argue that is the same point being ignored when you guys point at waiting times for various procedures in Canada. If you have an immediate need, you get immediate attention here. If you have a little arthritis and want that knee replacement, you will wait. Not all cases require immediate attention, nor as you put it, "the highest level of care". Anyhow, the comparisons to our system are red herring; your system will never look like ours with or without Obama's plan.



The comment about living longer strikes me as being similar to a little kid sticking their tongue out at another on a playground. Nice. real nice.


Not intended that way at all. Honestly just a reaction to the way our system is being inaccurately portrayed in a political battle on foreign soil.

bcampbe7
07-23-2009, 03:41 PM
Having lived in England most of my life, I'm pretty familiar with socialized health care. I'm also familiar with the incomprehensible inefficiency of the system. The NHS in England is fundamentally flawed an will probably bankrupt the country.... With that said...

I believe that everyone deserves a fundamental basic level of health care as a human right. Sure, right now, I'm employed, I have my health coverage and don't lose much sleep if something went wrong however, the moment I lose that job and that health cover because I can no longer afford it... I'd much prefer to get sick back in England. Now... I have no intention of losing my job but in these times, you never can tell. While I acknowledge that any system of socialized health care is open to some element of abuse from the lazy f***wits who continue to suck from a system, I would rather thethe system was in place so that the single mother of two can get the health care she deserves as her human right.
If the USA learned from the UK's enormous mistakes, it could work here. Of course as in England you could always supplement your basic health care with private care if you want to make sure that you're spending less time on waiting lists.

Long story short, I'm in favor of socialized health care as a theory... It's just really hard to achieve in reality.


Let me preface my reply by saying that being a Democrat or Republican is more than OK. There are individuals/orginizations in both parties that are extreme and make terrible decisions every day.


There inlies the problem. Apparrently (as shown by our last Presidential election) Americans have become "lazy f***wits" (not all, but those numbers seem to be increasing exponentially). A President was elected by buying TV time and talking directly to those who sit around and feel sorry for themselves. This plan will do nothing but enable those people to continue their behavior.

Regarding the "single mother of two." Why can she not already get the healthcare she deserves. Most of the ER's in this area (probably all over the US) are used as primary care offices. She could go to any of the non-private hospitals in the US and get the healthcare she "deserves" (whatever that means).

Ric
07-23-2009, 03:44 PM
Let me preface my reply by saying that being a Democrat or Republican is more than OK. There are individuals/orginizations in both parties that are extreme and make terrible decisions every day.


There inlies the problem. Apparrently (as shown by our last Presidential election) Americans have become "lazy f***wits" (not all, but those numbers seem to be increasing exponentially). A President was elected by buying TV time and talking directly to those who sit around and feel sorry for themselves. This plan will do nothing but enable those people to continue their behavior.

Regarding the "single mother of two." Why can she not already get the healthcare she deserves. Most of the ER's in this area (probably all over the US) are used as primary care offices. She could go to any of the non-private hospitals in the US and get the healthcare she "deserves" (whatever that means).
true beau. Nobody here is being denied any basic human rights (except for unborn children, but that's for another thread)
It's a very common play by the free healthcare proponents though.

bcampbe7
07-23-2009, 03:46 PM
Re: life expectancy...Canadian men live about 3 years longer and women about 2 years longer than their American counterparts.

Oh, I am fairly confident that lifestyle is the single biggest impact on life expectancy. Just pointing out that if our health care system was really as terrible as it is being described in this debate, you would think that we would be dropping like flies!




Actually, I would argue that is the same point being ignored when you guys point at waiting times for various procedures in Canada. If you have an immediate need, you get immediate attention here. If you have a little arthritis and want that knee replacement, you will wait. Not all cases require immediate attention, nor as you put it, "the highest level of care". Anyhow, the comparisons to our system are red herring; your system will never look like ours with or without Obama's plan.






Not intended that way at all. Honestly just a reaction to the way our system is being inaccurately portrayed in a political battle on foreign soil.


US's obesity rate is more than double that of Canada and your life expectancy is only 3 more years? I say Canada's life expectancy should be much higher than the US. Your healthcare system is lacking.

JimN
07-23-2009, 05:47 PM
Re: life expectancy...Canadian men live about 3 years longer and women about 2 years longer than their American counterparts.

Oh, I am fairly confident that lifestyle is the single biggest impact on life expectancy. Just pointing out that if our health care system was really as terrible as it is being described in this debate, you would think that we would be dropping like flies!

Actually, I would argue that is the same point being ignored when you guys point at waiting times for various procedures in Canada. If you have an immediate need, you get immediate attention here. If you have a little arthritis and want that knee replacement, you will wait. Not all cases require immediate attention, nor as you put it, "the highest level of care". Anyhow, the comparisons to our system are red herring; your system will never look like ours with or without Obama's plan.

Not intended that way at all. Honestly just a reaction to the way our system is being inaccurately portrayed in a political battle on foreign soil.

I just wanted to make sure all of the credit for longer life expectancy wasn't given to the health care system when a lifetime of bad decisions on the part of the patient are so important. All things considered (like the fact that so many Americans eat and drink to such excess), I think we're of more hearty stock if all you guys can pull off is another 2-3 years.:D

Part of a given country's collective mindset has to do with their expectations and we have the opinion that we should be able to get what we want, when we want it. It's so ingrained that when it doesn't happen, a lot of people scream about it. The fact that so many have been given too much for so long and have adopted a complete entitlement mentality doesn't help either, especially when the race/ethnic cards are tossed on the table.

He promised everyone ice cream and they voted for him. Pretty soon, they're going to realize that it will cost EVERYONE a lot, for a long time. There's no need for us to be a nation in debt but he doesn't see it that way. With Biden's comment "We need to spend more to keep from going broke" comes a window to their plan.

I'd like to see their exit strategy.

JimN
07-23-2009, 05:50 PM
true beau. Nobody here is being denied any basic human rights (except for unborn children, but that's for another thread)
It's a very common play by the free healthcare proponents though.

You forgot about taxpayers. We have lost any say in how the country is run and who gets what. We are now being told who gets what, how much and who will pay for it.

bigmac
07-23-2009, 06:26 PM
Re: life expectancy...Canadian men live about 3 years longer and women about 2 years longer than their American counterparts.

Oh, I am fairly confident that lifestyle is the single biggest impact on life expectancy. Just pointing out that if our health care system was really as terrible as it is being described in this debate, you would think that we would be dropping like flies!


.

I wouldn't think that at all (Natasha Richardson notwithstanding). Just because somebody is in a wheelchair from degenerative joint disease in knees or hips, or in constant agony from a herniated disk, or can't walk 20 feet without having crushing chest pain from angina, doesn't affect their mortality. They live just as long...they just WISH they were dead.

THAT is what makes the Canadian health care system so bad.

TX.X-30 fan
07-24-2009, 09:27 AM
I wouldn't think that at all (Natasha Richardson notwithstanding). Just because somebody is in a wheelchair from degenerative joint disease in knees or hips, or in constant agony from a herniated disk, or can't walk 20 feet without having crushing chest pain from angina, doesn't affect their mortality. They live just as long...they just WISH they were dead.

THAT is what makes the Canadian health care system so bad.

Its just amazing how he makes communism look so appealing with worthless statistics. Truth is the cancer survival rates in the US vs Canada and Great Britain are around 30% higher. In England they will not approve many breast cancer protocols for their patients so moneyed folks come here for cures instead of staying where the govt. decides who lives and dies.

This plan as it matures will do exactly that decide who is worth saving and how much money will be spent to save a life. Just look at the social cesspools in these countries and ask yourself is this what or where you would like the US of A to become.

TX.X-30 fan
07-24-2009, 09:37 AM
The UN's IPCC was formed in 1988...

The acronym stands for:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...umm, no one changed the name of anything.

Still, back on health care it is becoming increasingly amusing how medical care in Canada is being misrepresented by those who are opposed to Obama's plan - which has almost zero similarity at all to canada's health care system. You know how crazy us Canadians are...banks that don't fail, a medical care system that we can afford...we are just nuts!

Clearly, this is has become a purely political battle (on both sides) that has very little bearing on improving either the cost nor the delivery of health care.

On the point about why some Canadians and British seek health care in the US....they tend to go to the top facilities in your country. I don't think a single Canadian would suggest that the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins or the Cleveland Clinic etc are not outstanding medical centers. Yet, at the same time, I don't think that many would argue that they represent the average level of care in your country either.

Ayhow...I guess that we are all so busy living longer in Canada that we don't notice our awful medical system.:D

Oh yeah and that video is pretty funny..the guy goes to an emergency ward with nothing wrong with him and is surprised that he will have to wait to see a doctor? It does make for good television though.




So unbelievably niave, the name was changed and you know it.


Tell me what the govt has taken over and ever saved money or provided better service than the private sector

Mail delivery?

Train travel??

social security??

Medicare/medicaid

District of Columbia??

Public education??

And on and on and on and on and on and on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just sayin??

Govt is by nature inefficient, we sent gas/road taxes to washinton and they return 60 cents out of every dollar, very efficient would you not agree??? Not!!!

6ballsisall
07-24-2009, 03:52 PM
I received this via email from a good friend this morning. It couldn't be more dead on accurate



Lest you think it was written by some right-wing kook, David Kaiser is a respected historian whose published works have covered a broad range of topics, from European Warfare to American League Baseball. Born in 1947, the son of a diplomat, Kaiser spent his childhood in three capital cities: Washington D.C., Albany, New York, and Dakar, Senegal. He attended Harvard University, graduating there in 1969 with a B.A. In history. He then spent several years more at Harvard, gaining a PhD in history, which he obtained in 1976. He served in the Army Reserve from 1970 to 1976.

He is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College and has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College and Harvard University. Kaiser's latest book, The Road to Dallas, about the Kennedy assassination, was just published by Harvard University Press.
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
- Barack Obama

History Unfolding

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten... And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning..

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the "savior" was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.

And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did - regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office , while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand - the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course,


How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media - did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and .... . .. change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It's all there in the history books.

So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors ... all with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.

David Kaiser
Jamestown , Rhode Island
United States

6ballsisall
07-24-2009, 03:57 PM
Let me preface my reply by saying that being a Democrat or Republican is more than OK. There are individuals/orginizations in both parties that are extreme and make terrible decisions every day.


There inlies the problem. Apparrently (as shown by our last Presidential election) Americans have become "lazy f***wits" (not all, but those numbers seem to be increasing exponentially). A President was elected by buying TV time and talking directly to those who sit around and feel sorry for themselves. This plan will do nothing but enable those people to continue their behavior.

Regarding the "single mother of two." Why can she not already get the healthcare she deserves. Most of the ER's in this area (probably all over the US) are used as primary care offices. She could go to any of the non-private hospitals in the US and get the healthcare she "deserves" (whatever that means).


Dang Beau, I'd like to buy you a beer but you don't drink. How about I fill your diesel tractor with AMERICAN fuel for ya, that post rocked. ;)

bcampbe7
07-24-2009, 04:17 PM
Dang Beau, I'd like to buy you a beer but you don't drink. How about I fill your diesel tractor with AMERICAN fuel for ya, that post rocked. ;)

Thanks my brother from another mother! I think I am going to make a run for the school board! :D

TMCNo1
07-26-2009, 10:21 PM
and YOU, No.1....how old are YOU? How are your hips, knees? If you're over 65, I hope they're in good shape -- they're gonna have to last awhile (forever).

The Perfect Solution to Senior Health Care


While discussing the upcoming Obama Universal Health Care Program with my doctor the other day, I think we have found the solution. I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you’re a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let’s take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.

So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need! New teeth, great! Need glasses, no problem. A hearing aid, of course. New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax, power bills, house payments, you won't need a car and I can still be on Team Talk on the prison computer.
I really think we have found a Perfect Solution!
and
I've got 8 years to clean my pistol and get 4 fresh bullets!

JimN
07-26-2009, 11:42 PM
Thanks my brother from another mother! I think I am going to make a run for the school board! :D

Hey, hey, hey! None of this secret society talk here!

Granite_33
07-27-2009, 01:05 PM
Funny, being here in MI, I hear radio from the CBC (or similar entity) talking about the need for health care reform to improve patient treatment in Canada. Everyone recognizes it has issues.....no one has the answers on how to improve it.

I also have read about the governments glacial move to allow private clinics to treat individuals that either are not or cannot be seen by the gov't provided plan. Regardless, there is a trend to (gasp) privatized health care in Canada in provinces where the medical system is overloaded and unable to do anything for the patient. Some of this has been done in the face of being against the law.



In the US....
A more expensive house costs more to insure.
A more expensive house in areas more prone to natural disasters costs quite a bit more to insure.
(Even outside Ann Arbor, MI.....my insurance guy told me that I live in an area more prone to claims from fallen trees, etc, etc, so my premium is "a bit" higher.:rolleyes:)
A young driver costs more to insure.
A young driver with a poor driving record costs even more to insure.
Any driver with a poor driving record, or history of DUI's, etc, etc costs more in insure.
An expensive car costs more to insure.
The price of life insurance varies by the health of the individual trying to get coverage......


All of the above constitute pricing actions to reflect risk.

BUT YET.........

My neighbor who is in poor health, and visits the hospital frequently..........because of his poor choices........
Pays the same as I pay for monthly health insurance..............
(I am healthy...2-3 visits to the hospital in 40 years for a few fractures and some stitches)


That constitutes quite a bit of the problem in the US........Each state has many laws that must be adhered to.



Nice little piece below from WSJ Opinion a few years back.............some excerpts.



New York requires every insurance policy sold there to cover podiatry. Acupuncture coverage is mandated in 11 states, massage therapy in four, osteopathy in 24, and chiropractors in 47. There are an estimated 1,800 or so such insurance "mandates" across the country, and the costs add up. "It is always the providers asking for the mandate; it is never the consumer," says health policy guru John Goodman, who has testified before legislatures considering such rules.

What's more, states like New Jersey and New York add two more ultra-expensive requirements: "Guaranteed issue" allows people to wait till they are sick and then buy insurance; "community rating" prevents insurers from charging different prices to people of different ages and health status. These may sound like compassionate ideas, until you realize they make insurance so expensive that millions of people are exposed to financial ruin because they aren't allowed to buy basic policies focused on catastrophic costs.

How expensive? A 2004 study by eHealthInsurance.com found that a typical insurance policy ($2,000 deductible, 20% co-insurance) for a family of four could be had for as little in as $172 per month in a reasonably regulated locality like Kansas City, Missouri. But in New York that family's only option--managed care--would run $840 per month, and in New Jersey family policies run a whopping $1,200-plus. We bet Democratic Representative Frank Pallone's constituents in New Jersey would be interested in his view that insurance in his state is only "slightly" more expensive than elsewhere.

bigmac
07-27-2009, 01:19 PM
Funny, being here in MI, I hear radio from the CBC (or similar entity) talking about the need for health care reform to improve patient treatment in Canada. Everyone recognizes it has issues.....no one has the answers on how to improve it.




Here in Minnesota, it is not at all uncommon for Canadians to cross the border and pay out of pocket for diagnostic testing (especially highly rationed tests like CT scans and MRI's). In fact, one of the big problems with Neurosurgery wait times in Canada relate to the fact that patients are showing up at their doctor's office with a diagnostic MRI in hand, thereby forcing them into the neurosurgery system sooner than they would have got there if they had had to wait the usual several months to get their MRI in Canada.

Also seen are Canadians coming over to get their hernias fixed and varicose veins stripped. Those two procedures seem to be commonly withheld up there, based on my observations down here. I have a lot of anecdotes, based on patients that I talk to. They're just anecdotes, prove nothing, and I'm sure they're biased because they are universally patients who have been jerked around by their own system and are fed up enough to pay out of pocket.

These issues, like most others, don't show up in the statistical measures that Canada uses to tout the superiority of their health care system. Very bogus.

TX.X-30 fan
07-27-2009, 02:05 PM
Here in Minnesota, it is not at all uncommon for Canadians to cross the border and pay out of pocket for diagnostic testing (especially highly rationed tests like CT scans and MRI's). In fact, one of the big problems with Neurosurgery wait times in Canada relate to the fact that patients are showing up at their doctor's office with a diagnostic MRI in hand, thereby forcing them into the neurosurgery system sooner than they would have got there if they had had to wait the usual several months to get their MRI in Canada.

Also seen are Canadians coming over to get their hernias fixed and varicose veins stripped. Those two procedures seem to be commonly withheld up there, based on my observations down here. I have a lot of anecdotes, based on patients that I talk to. They're just anecdotes, prove nothing, and I'm sure they're biased because they are universally patients who have been jerked around by their own system and are fed up enough to pay out of pocket.

These issues, like most others, don't show up in the statistical measures that Canada uses to tout the superiority of their health care system. Very bogus.





Jorski will be along to disprove your absurd rantings with statistical studies by the UN/ or W.H.O. that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Canada and Cuba have the best health care in the Milky Way. :D

TX.X-30 fan
09-22-2009, 05:58 PM
.................... :D:D


52025

TMCNo1
09-22-2009, 07:08 PM
.................... :D:D
52031



I'll take my chances with the "Cash for Codgers" stimulus plan, I don't like the cold and I don't want Sarah Palin watchin' me freeze to death from her back porch!:rolleyes:

michael freeman
09-23-2009, 05:06 AM
I just don't like the whole "You bust your arse at work 14 hrs a day so others can have a good life" attitude. Why can't they bust their own arse? I sit at work some days and think "I'm just working for the next guy".

That is exactly how I feel.

2RLAKE
09-23-2009, 06:50 AM
here is how it would translate to a lunch program

mbeach
09-23-2009, 09:26 AM
the anointed one cites what a wonderful job the mayo clinic is doing in containing cost with great healthcare. what he never mentions, at least that i have heard, is that they do not accept the medicare assignment. in fact, my medical supplier also no longer accept medicare because of changes imposed under the new obama administration. i really fear this man and his henchmen in congress.

also, 6balls thanks for posting that email from david kaiser. we are indeed heading for some troubling times and i for one trust government even less now.

mdskier
09-23-2009, 11:01 AM
Well, from what I have read, the David Kaiser piece is a hoax. He did not write it and his views are pretty far from those in the piece.

bigmac
09-23-2009, 12:34 PM
the anointed one cites what a wonderful job the mayo clinic is doing in containing cost with great healthcare. what he never mentions, at least that i have heard, is that they do not accept the medicare assignment. in fact, my medical supplier also no longer accept medicare because of changes imposed under the new obama administration. i really fear this man and his henchmen in congress.



The Mayo Clinic loses money on health care. The expenses of running a health care facility, including many salaries and most equipment, are in large part covered by ongoing grants from the Mayo Foundation. Lots of money there.

Refusing to accept medicare/medicaid assignment, or more accurately physicians refusing to see patients that are on any government health plan (the "public option"), is a highly likely scenario.

Dbuck
09-23-2009, 06:03 PM
Indulge me while I tell you a little story.

Let's open a grocery store. To keep it simple, our grocery store will sell bread, milk, and eggs. Many customers come to our store, but we can't let them in without a note from their consultant. Once the consultant gives them a note, we let the customer into our grocery store. Now once in, the customer does not decide whether he needs bread, milk or eggs, nor do we. The consultant decides that. If the consultant decides the customer needs bread, we give him bread, eggs we give him eggs, etc. The consultant also decides how long the customer shops and how much eats and how often.

Now if our grocery store is big enough and popular enough, we can decide what kind of bread, milk, and eggs we will carry. But since we must have the consultants to let the customers in, sometimes the consultants have more or less influence over the kinds of milk, eggs, or bread we carry. Sometimes different consultants like different kinds, and in some situations we have to carry more than one kind if the consultants like different kinds. The consultants don't pay for the groceries, but we must keep the groceries they like and give them to the customers if they say so.

We can price our bread, milk, and eggs any way we want to as long as each customer's receipt has the same price on it. But this doesn't really matter, because in most cases, the price on the receipt has nothing to do with how much we actually receive for the groceries, but the receipts have to be the same. For the most part, the customers don't actually pay us for the groceries. See, each customer has a shopping card. Well most customers have a shopping card but some don't. The customers get their shopping cards from different places. Some get their shopping card from where they work. Some actually buy the shopping card from shopping card vendors. Some customers are given their shopping cards by their Uncle because they are of a certain age or make less than a certain amount of money. Now the shopping card suppliers pretty much tell us how much they will pay for the groceries, so the price that is printed on the receipt is meaningless. Some of the shopping card companies will negotiate with us to a degree, but if we can't agree, they will make the customers go to a different grocery store, even if it is a long way from the customer. And there is no negotiation with the Uncle. When the Uncle's customers come in, the Uncle simply tells us how much he will pay and that is that.

Now some customers don't have a shopping card. We have a back door to our grocery store where some consultants hang out. Customers who are really, really hungry come to the back door to see the consultants. These customers may or may not have cards. The deal is, if they come to the back door, we have to feed them whether or not they have shopping cards. Well, we at least have to feed them enough so they don't starve right there or at least we have to see if they are really hungry. Now this is not really a bad thing,
but sometimes customers who don't have cards realize this, and they will come to the back door even if they aren't really hungry, but just think they might be. They could have gone to the consulant's house, but some consultants won't let them in without the card, but the grocery store is required to.

Now my silly little story is pretty much the way a hospital works. The grocery store is the hospital, the docs are the consultants, the customers are the patients, and the shopping card companies are employers, insurance companies, and the government. I am not expressing opinion in this story on any of the parties, and of course there can be all kinds of twists on the ebb and flow. I didn't even get into the farmers and produce brokers, but I have rambled enough. (for now at least)

Skipper
09-23-2009, 06:43 PM
This is not a fictional tale. It is my life.

My daughter drives an hour each way to attend a technical college Mon - Fri from 0800 to 1600. We are paying about $12k for her to attend. She works Mon - Fri from 1700 - 2200. Her money goes to her car payment, insurance, and school supplies (with very little left over). I pay her student loans, give her a place to live, and food to eat.

She attends school with a large number of students who commute only a few minutes across town. These people are attending school at no cost to themselves. It is on the tax payers dime. Tax payers also pick up the bill for their children to attend daycare while they are in school. When they get out of school, they do not go to work. The tax payers pay for their groceries and who knows what else.

It is no secret who your President's health care plan is intended to support. Nor is it a secret who is going to pay for it.

FUBAR

TX.X-30 fan
09-23-2009, 07:18 PM
This is not a fictional tale. It is my life.

My daughter drives an hour each way to attend a technical college Mon - Fri from 0800 to 1600. We are paying about $12k for her to attend. She works Mon - Fri from 1700 - 2200. Her money goes to her car payment, insurance, and school supplies (with very little left over). I pay her student loans, give her a place to live, and food to eat.

She attends school with a large number of students who commute only a few minutes across town. These people are attending school at no cost to themselves. It is on the tax payers dime. Tax payers also pick up the bill for their children to attend daycare while they are in school. When they get out of school, they do not go to work. The tax payers pay for their groceries and who knows what else.

It is no secret who your President's health care plan is intended to support. Nor is it a secret who is going to pay for it.

FUBAR




This just about sums it all up. Great post Skipper.

mbeach
09-23-2009, 08:00 PM
This is not a fictional tale. It is my life.

My daughter drives an hour each way to attend a technical college Mon - Fri from 0800 to 1600. We are paying about $12k for her to attend. She works Mon - Fri from 1700 - 2200. Her money goes to her car payment, insurance, and school supplies (with very little left over). I pay her student loans, give her a place to live, and food to eat.

She attends school with a large number of students who commute only a few minutes across town. These people are attending school at no cost to themselves. It is on the tax payers dime. Tax payers also pick up the bill for their children to attend daycare while they are in school. When they get out of school, they do not go to work. The tax payers pay for their groceries and who knows what else.

It is no secret who your President's health care plan is intended to support. Nor is it a secret who is going to pay for it.

FUBAR ditto on the great post, but you do not have a corner on this screwed up
society. have not seen the fubar acronym in a long time, but very appropriate.

Dbuck
09-24-2009, 12:21 PM
My tale was not fictional either. It is just not specific. It is pretty much the business model for most hospitals. I have been in health care finance for 15 years.I put it in the form of a grocery store to demonstrate how complicated it is if you compare it to a "normal" business. My story is actually oversimplified and is only one segment of the health care delivery system. Don't get me wrong, I think our system works pretty well, though it isn't perfect.

And I agree with Skipper pretty much regarding the proposed health plan. A couple of "friends" of mine were debating the issue and the more liberal one said "doing nothing is not a solution." Well, in my opinion, doing nothing is actually a better solution than the one proposed. IMHO, very few if any of the senators and congressmen discussing health care have the slightest clue about how it works, how much it costs and who pays what.

In 2007, the lower 50% of taxpayers paid 3% of the tax collected. The top 10 % paid 61%! The top 50% paid 97% of the taxes collected.

I believe as a society we have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate and the elderly, but I don't believe that it should be done entirely or even mostly through taxing the working to pay for those that don't. There should be as Reagen said a "safety net" of services, but not even all of that should necessarily be funded through taxation.

Jesus_Freak
09-24-2009, 01:06 PM
...Well, in my opinion, doing nothing is actually a better solution than the one proposed.

I believe as a society we have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate and the elderly, but I don't believe that it should be done entirely or even mostly through taxing the working to pay for those that don't. There should be as Reagen said a "safety net" of services, but not even all of that should necessarily be funded through taxation.

Agreed...

When my wife and I first had children, we were not particularly rich. We were in college and working odd jobs. We had to get "SSI" (safety net mentioned above), but have more than paid it back since then. :)

This brings up a question that may or may not have been discussed before on TMC: How does the service provider determine the financial status (or other metric) that dictates someone is in "need" of help? At one point can someone "not afford" to pay for their own healthcare? What about someone who has been laid off, but still has cable, a boat, and some money in savings?

Dbuck
09-24-2009, 05:47 PM
Agreed...

When my wife and I first had children, we were not particularly rich. We were in college and working odd jobs. We had to get "SSI" (safety net mentioned above), but have more than paid it back since then. :)

This brings up a question that may or may not have been discussed before on TMC: How does the service provider determine the financial status (or other metric) that dictates someone is in "need" of help? At one point can someone "not afford" to pay for their own healthcare? What about someone who has been laid off, but still has cable, a boat, and some money in savings?

And that is one completely appropriate use of the safety net--get through difficult times on the way to a productive life.

Most hospitals, especially not for profits, have a basis for charity or community benefit care. They usually have financial counselors who can assist or inform patients of potential government benefits, as well as help them apply for community benefit care. Many hospitals have a metric based on the poverty level that determines what the patient might qualify for.

Oh, and I realized I did not spell Reagan correctly in my earlier post and to fellow admirers I apologize.

Now in the second part of your post you are asking the hard questions! Questions, that require moral judgement and questions of personal responsibility!

The short answer would be turn off the cable, sell the boat, and pay for food, clothing, shelter, and transportation to look for a new job with health coverage as soon as possible. If there are funds available purchase minimum health insurance with a high deductible that will get by and cover major problems. But there usually isn't a short answer. what if the layoff is protracted. What if the person has a serious chronic illness or worse, has children with serious health needs. These are questions that then become difficult on an individual as well as a societal level.

We have Medicaid and CHIPS, and I would not be opposed to expanding the CHIPS (for kids up through 18). I believe the healthcare industry should absorb some and it does some- more so with docs and hospitals and lately drug companies. I would like to see biomed device companies step up more in this area.

But you hit one of the problems on the metaphorical nail head--determining who should get assistance. And how to give assistance without disincentivising those who can to pay for their care.

Jorski
09-24-2009, 07:27 PM
Should the single biggest cause of bankruptcy be medical bills? Doesn't seem right to me. Seems to indicate to me that there is a problem.

JimN
09-24-2009, 07:38 PM
Should the single biggest cause of bankruptcy be medical bills? Doesn't seem right to me. Seems to indicate to me that there is a problem.

No, it shouldn't and if someone has enough equity in their house, they can't file for bankruptcy, either. If they take too long enough to pay, they'll have to sell the house instead. I know someone who's going through this now because of a car crash, which put him in the hospital and a medically induced coma (three months for the coma alone) and he's basically screwed. OTOH, if the hospital/s lawyer wasn't such a raving biatch, he probably could have worked something out.

Patients shouldn't be forced to file and doctors shouldn't have to pay so much for malpractice insurance.

Jorski
09-24-2009, 09:04 PM
I know someone who's going through this now because of a car crash, which put him in the hospital and a medically induced coma (three months for the coma alone) and he's basically screwed.


And here I thought everyone who didn't have medical insurance was a lazy bum who was trying to steal from the rich?

Jimn, your friend wouldn't be screwed in basically every other developed country in the world...just sayin'

nmcjr
09-24-2009, 09:25 PM
Anyone from Massechusets on here? Heard a pretty good report on NPR today that details a Mass law requiring health care for everyone, which is a pretty similar plan to that being proposed in Congress--moreso than the Canadian plan. Would be curious what Mass residents think. I have heard pretty good things from most Canadians about their plan, but their tax rates also reflect the plan IMO.

That said, I don't think any of these proposed plans will curtail health care costs, which is what they all claim they will do. They do not address the root cause, rather appease the voter base who put Obama in office. If we want to do all this so that we can have health care for everyone, then let's just say that. Let's not disguise it as some cost cutting measure. By the way, health care costs in Mass have been rising 10% anually since the law was enacted, according to the story.

Two things that in my opinion are the root cause of health care costs today:
1. Americans have become very unhealthy--obesity rates of 30+% and we wonder why health care costs so much?!?!? Also, if you look at the demographics, those who will benefit most from this plan are the ones doing this damage to themselves the most. I am not a fan of more taxes, but would support a sin tax if done right--fast food, tobacco, and maybe alcohol. This would both fund health care and change behaviors.

2. Reform the medical malpractice system of abuse. This results in doctors needing to pay $200k+ a year insurance premiums and also practice "defensive medicine" wherein unnecessary tests are performed even though doctors don't feel they are necessary, but have to be done to limit liability. Unfortunately, this will likely not happen. Lawyers are one of the largest lobbies and its easy to see why--look at the occupation of most of Congress and you will see that there are a lot of lawyers (including Obama and Biden, of course). Washed out lawyers making our laws and we wonder why we are such a mess! (Apologies to any lawyers reading this...I'm not saying they are all bad, but some diversity in Congress would go a long way)

So, not an expert on the subject, but some thoughts I have had.

JimN
09-24-2009, 09:43 PM
And here I thought everyone who didn't have medical insurance was a lazy bum who was trying to steal from the rich?

Jimn, your friend wouldn't be screwed in basically every other developed country in the world...just sayin'

The real lazy bums are career welfare recipients, not people who work and can't afford health insurance. WI, where I am, only has 9% without insurance and I don't know where they got that info but I think it's wrong. The Milwaukee Metro Area has ~1.73 Million people and the city of Milwaukee has a lot of low income people.

Re: your last comment- what happens if a doctor screws up and a patient is maimed, incapacitated or dies? Think about that and then tell us what we should do about our health care costs.

nmcjr
09-24-2009, 10:42 PM
Re: your last comment- what happens if a doctor screws up and a patient is maimed, incapacitated or dies? Think about that and then tell us what we should do about our health care costs.

The presumption here and in our court system is that he/she indeed "screwed up". But, is no mistake by a doctor allowable? They are no more perfect than any of us. From your many posts here, I have assumed you are a MC mechanic. Have you ever broken a bolt or made a similar mistake? Now, imagine if that meant a certain $30 million dollar lawsuit? How much longer would it take to tighten every other bolt from there on because you had to chase every thread, use a torque wrench on every nut or bolt, calibrate the torque wrench before each use and on and on and on? This is analogous to nowadays, if your kid falls and bumps his head and you take them to the doctor, he is likely to order a CT scan to cover himself. When we were growing up, he would simply tell you to be more careful.

Now, if harm is done to a patient as a result of true negligence, i.e. the wrong leg amputated, or the surgeon was drunk etc., then yes, there should be some financial remedy, although I think the valuation of such an event is very difficult. However, I think that these types of cases are much more the exception than the rule. More common is that something takes place that would have occured regardless of who was the doctor involved under the same circumstances. Families become saddened and angered at their loss, which is understandable, and placing blame on the doctor is easier than dealing with the fact that sometimes bad things just happen and are out of our control. Throw in an unscrupulous attorney and you have a receipe for an instant lawsuit. It almost seems like a given nowadays that if something bad happens to you, there is always someone you can sue--like you'd be stupid not too.

Frivolous lawsuits are an issue in many areas, not just healthcare and I do feel it is a significant contributing factor in the high cost of our current healthcare system.

JimN
09-24-2009, 10:48 PM
The presumption here and in our court system is that he/she indeed "screwed up". But, is no mistake by a doctor allowable? They are no more perfect than any of us. From your many posts here, I have assumed you are a MC mechanic. Have you ever broken a bolt or made a similar mistake? Now, imagine if that meant a certain $30 million dollar lawsuit? How much longer would it take to tighten every other bolt from there on because you had to chase every thread, use a torque wrench on every nut or bolt, calibrate the torque wrench before each use and on and on and on? This is analogous to nowadays, if your kid falls and bumps his head and you take them to the doctor, he is likely to order a CT scan to cover himself. When we were growing up, he would simply tell you to be more careful.

Now, if harm is done to a patient as a result of true negligence, i.e. the wrong leg amputated, or the surgeon was drunk etc., then yes, there should be some financial remedy, although I think the valuation of such an event is very difficult. However, I think that these types of cases are much more the exception than the rule. More common is that something takes place that would have occured regardless of who was the doctor involved under the same circumstances. Families become saddened and angered at their loss, which is understandable, and placing blame on the doctor is easier than dealing with the fact that sometimes bad things just happen and are out of our control. Throw in an unscrupulous attorney and you have a receipe for an instant lawsuit. It almost seems like a given nowadays that if something bad happens to you, there is always someone you can sue--like you'd be stupid not too.

Frivolous lawsuits are an issue in many areas, not just healthcare and I do feel it is a significant contributing factor in the high cost of our current healthcare system.

I worked with someone whose father was given too much Coumaden. He died, painfully. You want to compare that with a broken bolt? We're talking about lives, physical disfigurement and impairment, not a freakin' boat.

nmcjr
09-24-2009, 11:19 PM
I worked with someone whose father was given too much Coumaden. He died, painfully. You want to compare that with a broken bolt? We're talking about lives, physical disfigurement and impairment, not a freakin' boat.

That's not my point at all. My point is this: in yours and my professions, mistakes do not put lives on the line, yet we (at least I) do make mistakes. I was just making the analogy that I would probably break that exact same bolt as you, so is it a "screw up" or is it unavoidable? Should we be punished for it? How much more careful would you be with every bolt there after if you were sued for millions of dollars each time something like that happened? How much more expensive would your repairs be in the future? Were we doctors, there would probably be circumstances wherein hindsight being 20/20 maybe we could have acted differently and had a different outcome. In those cases we would no doubt be sued. So, to expect perfection from doctors is not realistic-medicine is not a perfect science and requires judgement. Humans don't throw trouble codes or have error logs. And furthermore, there are many lawsuits where medical review boards found no fault in the doctor, yet some hired gun of an "expert witness" says otherwise and the doctor loses.

In the case you mention, if it was indeed negligence than compensation is in order, as I already stated, and I would sue myself. I did not say that all lawsuits are bad, the point I was trying to make was that we need to eliminate those without merit to minimize defensive medicine. It is not an easy problem to solve, but a problem nonetheless.

woftam
09-24-2009, 11:37 PM
First, here is a bit of disclosure. I am a registered Republican with Libertarian leanings. My votes are primarily for Republican candidates, although I do not simply vote the party line and have never been reluctant to vote for someone I consider a superior candidate across party lines.

That said, I’m particularly disappointed in the representation of my party on the national level over the last decade or so. As compared to Slick Willy’s relative fiscal responsibility, W was a high roller on the loosing end and heavy spender of our collective hard earned money. That, and W’s quickness to reduce/curtail/eliminate personal freedoms in the name of national security for the sake of expedience was particularly objectionable. W gave lip service to supporting our armed forces, but the end result was a failure to efficiently provide proper gear (proper gear we had available) in a timely fashion to our troops in order for them to accomplish their mission. Timely delivery was often compromised by contractors with an association to upper level White House officials. For that, soldiers needlessly lost their lives. I’m not proud of my party, the Republican Party, during the tenure of either Bush President. I’m not to the point of being disillusioned with my party and I’m not thinking about changing. The other major party doesn’t offer a reasonable alternative for me. Given the revolving deadlock, it’s probably best to seek compromise for a livable middle ground.

The idea of healthcare reform, or its current iteration of “health insurance reform”, is nothing new. The call for a better system has been documented to go back at least as far as one of Teddy Roosevelt’s administrations. We’re not rushing into this unless you consider ~100 +/- years to be the blink of an eye. On the emotional side, I consider it a moral imperative that we provide a minimum level of care for those who are legitimately unable to do so (but hey, I just get that form all those damned Sunday School classes my parents made me attend). I’m amazed so many in the Republican Party, who claim to be God fearing Christians, can’t/don’t find it in their hearts to practice some basic charity for those who are on the bottom end of the less fortunate. I just can’t understand that, except for the notion that Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. But come on church goers, you need to try harder or God is going to be pissed off with you. On the more practical side, we’re already subsidizing the uninsured by collectively paying for those who use Emergency Rooms as their primary care providers. Since we’re doing it anyway, and make no mistake – we are, let’s do it in a more cost effective manner.

There is plenty of misinformation to go around. What we currently know about the proposal for the U.S. is essentially described as a system of private insurance with a compulsory publicly provided option for those who cannot obtain private health insurance. There would be limited exemptions (tax payer funded, on a graduated scale) for those who truly cannot afford either option. That’s nothing like Canada’s system of exclusively socialized medicine. To characterize it as such is an act of misinformation or ignorance. The proposed system is overwhelmingly private. Again, we’re paying for the uninsured anyway. Let’s figure out a way to make our mandatory largess (similar in concept to the oxymoron “required volunteerism” embraced by both major parties, much to my chagrin) more practical, less expensive, and more effective. As an aside, I seem to be about as satisfied/dissatisfied with my BC/BS PPO as my uncle’s family is in Nova Scotia with their socialized medicine or my sister in law’s family is in London with their combination of socialized medicine coupled with a private policy. Both my Canadian and English domiciled relatives lived the majority of their lives in the states and they are fully aware of the pros and cons of the systems they have had to live with.

Obama is ~ half black and half white. Few can claim pure racial heritage if they look at their blood line closely. If Hitler’s example is taken into consideration, fewer still should aspire to be pure of race. At this day in age, those who characterize Obama as a witch doctor, terrorist asset, or similar bravo sierra are engaged in race baiting and make Jimmy Carter sound like the voice of reason. All I can say is those who are racist will have some explaining to do with their maker after they leave this earth. I learned that in Sunday School too.

However, the devil is in the details and we need much more in the way of details from the Obama administration to even begin to formulate a reasoned preliminary judgment on the “plan”. It’s time for POTUS to provide the details. YMMV.

edit: some spelling errors

JimN
09-25-2009, 08:22 AM
That's not my point at all. My point is this: in yours and my professions, mistakes do not put lives on the line, yet we (at least I) do make mistakes. I was just making the analogy that I would probably break that exact same bolt as you, so is it a "screw up" or is it unavoidable? Should we be punished for it? How much more careful would you be with every bolt there after if you were sued for millions of dollars each time something like that happened? How much more expensive would your repairs be in the future? Were we doctors, there would probably be circumstances wherein hindsight being 20/20 maybe we could have acted differently and had a different outcome. In those cases we would no doubt be sued. So, to expect perfection from doctors is not realistic-medicine is not a perfect science and requires judgement. Humans don't throw trouble codes or have error logs. And furthermore, there are many lawsuits where medical review boards found no fault in the doctor, yet some hired gun of an "expert witness" says otherwise and the doctor loses.

In the case you mention, if it was indeed negligence than compensation is in order, as I already stated, and I would sue myself. I did not say that all lawsuits are bad, the point I was trying to make was that we need to eliminate those without merit to minimize defensive medicine. It is not an easy problem to solve, but a problem nonetheless.

OK, but who decides how much the doctor pays if they screw up? A jury. When people get together in a small room and can talk among themselves with no outside interference and a persuasive lawyer gets their blood boiling by saying the doctor is arrogant, rich and has all of the things the members of the jury can't afford, the first thing they decide is that he's gonna pay. In the TV ads for a law firm here, the people who "are actual clients", say "When Micxxxx Hxxx gets involved, insurance companies pay, and pay big".

They don't have a menu that has boxes to be checked off for the damages and when someone has a judgment against them for $20M and the judge makes it stick, what are they supposed to do after the trial?

If someone dies due to something done by a doctor or nurse, but it's completely accidental, what should happen? If we're in a car crash and it's purely accidental, the expenses are paid by the driver found to be at fault and we all know that negligence has a different result but if the other driver is rich, people see them as a payday and go after the money. Doctors fall into this pit and if any shred of evidence makes them look just a tiny bit negligent, it's not going to be pretty for them.

bigmac
09-25-2009, 08:36 AM
The definition of malpractice is a deviation from the standards of care that causes someone harm. A bad outcome, such as death by coumadin, does not necessarily imply deviation from the standards of care, does not automatically imply malpractice liability.

Doctors DO have to be held to a higher standard, DO have to adhere more closely to the standards of care of their profession, and SHOULD be held liable when they don't.

djhuff
09-25-2009, 09:01 AM
I've been out of this topic til now, but I have STRONG feelings about the "reform" that is needed.

First thing we NEED to do is curtail health care costs, and I strongly believe that we do this by putting the purchasing power back in the hands of the CONSUMER (or Patient).

When was the last time you went to the doctor and knew what it cost, not your copay, but what the visit cost? Next time you go, try and ask the doc how much it will cost. THIS is a HUGE problem.

John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) had some great ideas, IMO it HAS to start here, I'm not against helping people, but we have to get costs under control.

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

JimN
09-25-2009, 09:14 AM
"I’m not proud of my party, the Republican Party, during the tenure of either Bush President. I’m not to the point of being disillusioned with my party and I’m not thinking about changing. The other major party doesn’t offer a reasonable alternative for me. Given the revolving deadlock, it’s probably best to seek compromise for a livable middle ground."

Neither main party has been doing a particularly good job of representing us and in something as large as health care, they can only be expected to be wasteful, inefficient and dishonest. They have been far less than open about what's included, how much it will cost and the only thing they're really trying to do is get it done fast, so they can look good in the eyes of the voters.

"The idea of healthcare reform, or its current iteration of “health insurance reform”, is nothing new. The call for a better system has been documented to go back at least as far as one of Teddy Roosevelt’s administrations. We’re not rushing into this unless you consider ~100 +/- years to be the blink of an eye. On the emotional side, I consider it a moral imperative that we provide a minimum level of care for those who are legitimately unable to do so (but hey, I just get that form all those damned Sunday School classes my parents made me attend). I’m amazed so many in the Republican Party, who claim to be God fearing Christians, can’t/don’t find it in their hearts to practice some basic charity for those who are on the bottom end of the less fortunate. I just can’t understand that, except for the notion that Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. But come on church goers, you need to try harder or God is going to be pissed off with you. On the more practical side, we’re already subsidizing the uninsured by collectively paying for those who use Emergency Rooms as their primary care providers. Since we’re doing it anyway, and make no mistake – we are, let’s do it in a more cost effective manner."

Since it has taken this long, should we just rush into the newest plan? What, exactly, is that plan? It changes every day, depending on how much support the polls say they're getting. It's like someone trying to find their way home by licking their finger, sticking it into the air and feeling where the wind is coming from.

So, by your comments, is it only Christians who should pay for this? What if many of those Christians can't afford to pay for their own health insurance- should they be forced to buy it?

You're right- we are paying for people to use our ERs. Many of those people are going there only because they know they won't have to pay, and you can bank on the fact that some can pay, but don't want to. Using the rationale "It's what we have always done" or "That's how we do it", it doesn't take into account that it's not right to force others to pay others' way when an alternative could be found. ER staff being tied up with a sprained ankle or a runny nose makes people with serious injuries die and hospitals close. It's a bit like needing some kind of work done to their house and instead of having a competent handyman do it, they have an artisan do it and not pay them. Most of these people would be fine at a clinic, which would clearly not cost as much. You really think a government run insurance plan would be a more cost effective manner?

"Both my Canadian and English domiciled relatives lived the majority of their lives in the states and they are fully aware of the pros and cons of the systems they have had to live with."

Again, since we have had so long to look at how other places do this and neither side has been willing to make a real attempt to hammer out a deal in the past, how does Obama and the Democrats not look like they're rushing this "plan" through? They keep changing it and haven't made much info available. Should we let them pass it and look at the details later? You know they won't change it once it's signed, right?

"Obama is ~ half black and half white. Few can claim pure racial heritage if they look at their blood line closely. If Hitler’s example is taken into consideration, fewer still should aspire to be pure of race. At this day in age, those who characterize Obama as a witch doctor, terrorist asset, or similar bravo sierra are engaged in race baiting and make Jimmy Carter sound like the voice of reason. All I can say is those who are racist will have some explaining to do with their maker after they leave this earth. I learned that in Sunday School too."

Why are you telling us that we're being racist by not going along with the New Plan? He has continually contradicted himself, is associated with people he says are only acquaintances, has almost no practical experience in anything other than rabble rousing and being a lawyer and clearly has no affection for whites or "rich" people when it makes him look like one of the poor, oppressed masses. Those "rich" people (you know, the ones who make more than $250K/yr when he's one of them but we know most of his money comes from anything other than his own work) will be forced to pay the way for people who could have finished high school but didn't. They could have stayed out of gangs, but didn't. Could have stayed away from drugs, but didn't. Could have avoided becoming pregnant, but didn't (hey- "have more kids=more money every month" looks pretty good if the long term isn't considered). Could have risen against their own government and demanded basic services for the people in their home country but decided that it's much easier to sneak across the border to another country and use up their resources, run gangs & drug cartels, not pay taxes and use services that are paid for by the people who already have to pay for too many others who don't pay their own way.

Many people you're calling 'racist' don't give a rat's azz that he's half-black. What he's trying to do is wrong. Instead of telling people in the low income range that they should stay in school, kick drugs and booze, avoid gangs and maintain a family and generally become better people- he's effectively telling them that it's OK for them to "stay where you are and that those others, the rich ones, will be made to pay your way and they'll be made to provide more for you". That's not racist? We all know whites have everything, right? Everything comes to them much more easily, right? Life is just a bed of roses for whites, right?

"However, the devil is in the details and we need much more in the way of details from the Obama administration to even begin to formulate a reasoned preliminary judgment on the “plan”. It’s time for POTUS to provide the details. YMMV."

How much info was released before the Porkulus was passed? Responsible government would include 9000 earmarks in any bill? I don't think so! They don't want us to see what they're doing, which is why he wanted to have the health care plan signed before the August break. Get it done fast is never going to be the best way and it surely won't be "reasoned". They'll justify every little perk, but when we see what they've done for themselves and their friends, we're not going to like it.

Wars have always allowed people who are associated with government to profit. It happened in all of the other wars we have been in and they weren't usually started by Republicans or when Republicans were in office, either. If you remember, Nixon got us out of Viet Nam and did a lot for foreign policy. What did Johnson do? Johnson was so paranoid that he had more recorders installed and taped every conversation he had, many of which have been seen as at least as damaging as Nixon's Watergate tapes. Is making deals with people over war efforts more, or less damaging than a break in at the DNC?

JimN
09-25-2009, 09:22 AM
The definition of malpractice is a deviation from the standards of care that causes someone harm. A bad outcome, such as death by coumadin, does not necessarily imply deviation from the standards of care, does not automatically imply malpractice liability.

Doctors DO have to be held to a higher standard, DO have to adhere more closely to the standards of care of their profession, and SHOULD be held liable when they don't.

Re: the bold type- it does when the patient is given ten times the normal dose.

For those who don't know what Coumadin is, it's rat poison. Rat poison causes massive internal bleeding by reducing the clotting factor in blood.

bigmac
09-25-2009, 09:34 AM
As many as 30% of the employees in a typical health care clinic are there solely to navigate the paperwork necessary to get reimbursed by third party payors.

Average reimbursebment from these payors is about 90 days. How many businesses could sustain the cash flow associated with accounts receivable aged at 90 days?

Tort reform...big problem nationwide. Average surgeon in Minnesota pays about $12,000 - $15,000 per year. Average surgeon in Florida pays about $120,000 - $150,000 per year.

Medicare reform? Unfortunately it's not as simple as just ratcheting down reimbursement to hospitals and doctors. Do that, especially in this era of severe doctor shortage (and getting worse), and you'll get more and more doctors being unable to afford to take care of Medicare and Medicaid patients. However, there certainly are inequities in that system that have their roots in pork-barrel politics. Medicare expenditure in Minnesota is about $5000 per Medicare patient per year. In Florida, it's about $12,000 per patient per year, mainly because doctors and hospitals there get reimbursed more for each Medicare patient that they see. Regional operating cost variations don't even come close to explaining that variation. However, if to compare number of electoral votes of a give state compared to their Medicare reimbusement rates, you WILL see a correlation.

Costs are going up because Americans are unhealthy. More than 67% of the US is classified as "overweight" (body mass index greater than 25)

Percent of noninstitutionalized adults age 20 years and over who are overweight or obese: 67% (2005-2006)
Percent of noninstitutionalized adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 34% (2005-2006)
Percent of adolescents age 12-19 years who are overweight: 18% (2005-2006)
Percent of children age 6-11 years who are overweight: 15% (2005-2006)
Percent of children age 2-5 years who are overweight: 11% (2005-2006)

Technology in medicine is increasingly expensive. An MRI scanner, increasingly useful in diagnosis of more and more things, costs $1,000,000. Used to be (about 5 years ago) that about 25% of appendectomies turned out to be unnecessary. Now, the standard of care is to get a CT scan on patients where appendicitis is suspected, which raises the accuracy to greater than 95%. That's a good thing, but each CT scan costs about $1000. Minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopy, arthroscopy etc) is a good thing -- less pain, fewer complications, but a suite of equipment necessary to do that costs over $250,000 for each operating room.

bigmac
09-25-2009, 09:47 AM
Re: the bold type- it does when the patient is given ten times the normal dose.

For those who don't know what Coumadin is, it's rat poison. Rat poison causes massive internal bleeding by reducing the clotting factor in blood.
Yeh, if some doctor was stupid enough to write a prescription for 50-100 milligrams of coumadin per day, and some pharmacist was stupid enough to actually fill that prescription, that would be malpractice.

However, the largest dose coumadin comes in is 10 milligram tablets. So, some doctor wrote a prescription for that patient to take 5 or more coumadin tablets per day? I am highly doubtful that that anecdote is accurate, but anything's possible, and if it DID occur that way, that indeed would be malpractice and the doctor and pharmacist would be liable, and neither should be practicing in their given professions.

JimN
09-25-2009, 10:35 AM
Yeh, if some doctor was stupid enough to write a prescription for 50-100 milligrams of coumadin per day, and some pharmacist was stupid enough to actually fill that prescription, that would be malpractice.

However, the largest dose coumadin comes in is 10 milligram tablets. So, some doctor wrote a prescription for that patient to take 5 or more coumadin tablets per day? I am highly doubtful that that anecdote is accurate, but anything's possible, and if it DID occur that way, that indeed would be malpractice and the doctor and pharmacist would be liable, and neither should be practicing in their given professions.

The patient was bed-ridden and this was administered by the hospital staff (whoever that may have been).

He had been in for bypass surgery and never came out.

woftam
09-25-2009, 11:01 AM
Jim N wrote: “Since it has taken this long, should we just rush into the newest plan? What, exactly, is that plan? It changes every day, depending on how much support the polls say they're getting. It's like someone trying to find their way home by licking their finger, sticking it into the air and feeling where the wind is coming from.”

Response: See the final paragraph in my last post. It reads: “However, the devil is in the details and we need much more in the way of details from the Obama administration to even begin to formulate a reasoned preliminary judgment on the “plan”. It’s time for POTUS to provide the details. YMMV.” It appears we agree on that point?

Jim N wrote: “So, by your comments, is it only Christians who should pay for this? What if many of those Christians can't afford to pay for their own health insurance- should they be forced to buy it?”

Response: That is a creative interpretation of what I wrote. However is nowhere near accurate. I never wrote anything that suggested Only Christians should pay. However, later in your post you’ll agree with me that we are all paying for the uninsured anyway. Your argument is difficult to follow as elements are contradictory.

Jim N wrote: “You're right- we are paying for people to use our ERs. Many of those people are going there only because they know they won't have to pay, and you can bank on the fact that some can pay, but don't want to. Using the rationale "It's what we have always done" or "That's how we do it", it doesn't take into account that it's not right to force others to pay others' way when an alternative could be found. ER staff being tied up with a sprained ankle or a runny nose makes people with serious injuries die and hospitals close. It's a bit like needing some kind of work done to their house and instead of having a competent handyman do it, they have an artisan do it and not pay them. Most of these people would be fine at a clinic, which would clearly not cost as much. You really think a government run insurance plan would be a more cost effective manner?”

Response: We seem to agree we are already paying for the uninsured who routinely access ER’s and use them as primary care providers. My point was that in the current system, our tax dollars already being used to pay for those who either do not or cannot pay for themselves, for any number of reasons that run the gamut from being destitute due to disability, to those who are lazy son of bi*%hes, to those who are professional gamers of the system, to those who own their own businesses but cannot afford the high cost of health insurance on an individual or family basis due to lack of leverage or buying power. Given that reality, we’d do much better to require everyone to be insured and to pay into the system. We can make that a viable reality by eliminating the enormous waste inherent in the current system. Enact reform as suggested by the guy from Whole Foods, close the loop on the gamers, accept we’ll continue to subsidize those who cannot take care of themselves due to disability, and work on a solution for the lazy sob’s. I don’t have a solution for the lazy sob’s and bow to anyone who does. Government/hippy co-op/not for profit corp, I don’t really care. We need to take a stab at an option for universal access to health insurance so that those who cannot access the current system can get on board with paying their way. We’re already being heavily taxed in the current system by subsidizing the uninsured in a wink and nod sort of way through the back door. We should legitimize the process and everyone should enter through the front door. We appear to be arguing semantics?

Jim N wrote: “Again, since we have had so long to look at how other places do this and neither side has been willing to make a real attempt to hammer out a deal in the past, how does Obama and the Democrats not look like they're rushing this "plan" through? They keep changing it and haven't made much info available. Should we let them pass it and look at the details later? You know they won't change it once it's signed, right?”

Response: We don’t seem to disagree here. Again, the final paragraph in my last post read: “However, the devil is in the details and we need much more in the way of details from the Obama administration to even begin to formulate a reasoned preliminary judgment on the “plan”. It’s time for POTUS to provide the details. YMMV.”
I guess I should thank you for the affirmation???

Jim N wrote: “Why are you telling us that we're being racist by not going along with the New Plan? He has continually contradicted himself, is associated with people he says are only acquaintances, has almost no practical experience in anything other than rabble rousing and being a lawyer and clearly has no affection for whites or "rich" people when it makes him look like one of the poor, oppressed masses. Those "rich" people (you know, the ones who make more than $250K/yr when he's one of them but we know most of his money comes from anything other than his own work) will be forced to pay the way for people who could have finished high school but didn't. They could have stayed out of gangs, but didn't. Could have stayed away from drugs, but didn't. Could have avoided becoming pregnant, but didn't (hey- "have more kids=more money every month" looks pretty good if the long term isn't considered). Could have risen against their own government and demanded basic services for the people in their home country but decided that it's much easier to sneak across the border to another country and use up their resources, run gangs & drug cartels, not pay taxes and use services that are paid for by the people who already have to pay for too many others who don't pay their own way.

Many people you're calling 'racist' don't give a rat's azz that he's half-black. What he's trying to do is wrong. Instead of telling people in the low income range that they should stay in school, kick drugs and booze, avoid gangs and maintain a family and generally become better people- he's effectively telling them that it's OK for them to "stay where you are and that those others, the rich ones, will be made to pay your way and they'll be made to provide more for you". That's not racist? We all know whites have everything, right? Everything comes to them much more easily, right? Life is just a bed of roses for whites, right?

Response: I never wrote that anyone is a racist if they don’t go along with the “New Plan”. Those are your words, not mine. As indicated by some of the posts in this thread, there are racists active on this forum that have posted in this thread. Either that or it’s just an unfortunate coincidence some of the forum members mistakenly made race baiting posts? I’m just calling the racists out without engaging in specific names as arguing with a racist on an internet forum does no good. Maybe pointing out race baiting posts will lower the frequency of the offending posts for a while? As for those who are racist, that’s between them and their maker.

I’m all for personal responsibility. For example, I am a big fan of Bill Cosby for taking the portion of the “black community” to task that does not value education, does not take responsibility for their reproduction or their children, who populate gangs, and live off the labor of others. He does so even though it is politically incorrect and puts him at odds with more traditional black leaders of recent two decades. That argument is good for white, yellow, black and everything in between. Race doesn’t matter. I’m white and never said Life is a bed is a bed of roses for whites. Those are your words and you seem to take the liberty to attribute notions I did not express to me. Why? I don’t think we disagree on the larger theme here. What is your point???

Jim N wrote: “How much info was released before the Porkulus was passed? Responsible government would include 9000 earmarks in any bill? I don't think so! They don't want us to see what they're doing, which is why he wanted to have the health care plan signed before the August break. Get it done fast is never going to be the best way and it surely won't be "reasoned". They'll justify every little perk, but when we see what they've done for themselves and their friends, we're not going to like it.”

Response: Again we agree necessary details are lacking. How is “Porkulus” reated to our discussion related to health insurance reform? Are you trying to infer I favor lots of pork in government? I never wrote that I favor pork and it would be a lie to say I do. What is your point???

Jim N wrote: “Wars have always allowed people who are associated with government to profit. It happened in all of the other wars we have been in and they weren't usually started by Republicans or when Republicans were in office, either. If you remember, Nixon got us out of Viet Nam and did a lot for foreign policy. What did Johnson do? Johnson was so paranoid that he had more recorders installed and taped every conversation he had, many of which have been seen as at least as damaging as Nixon's Watergate tapes. Is making deals with people over war efforts more, or less damaging than a break in at the DNC?”

Response: That’s why a good start on the reasons why I’m not a Democrat. You’ll note I was not critical of Nixon, Ford, or Reagan. Johnson was perhaps our most corrupt President? That doesn’t begin to excuse the calculated corruption and war profiteering of W’s cronies. And your point is what????

edits for some spelling errors

JimN
09-25-2009, 12:10 PM
"Response: See the final paragraph in my last post. It reads: “However, the devil is in the details and we need much more in the way of details from the Obama administration to even begin to formulate a reasoned preliminary judgment on the “plan”. It’s time for POTUS to provide the details. YMMV.”

"It appears we agree on that point?"

Yessir.

"Response: That is a creative interpretation of what I wrote. However is nowhere near accurate. I never wrote anything that suggested Only Christians should pay. However, later in your post you’ll agree with me that we are all paying for the uninsured anyway. Your argument is difficult to follow as elements are contradictory."

You didn't mention a single other group, so if it's read and interpreted literally, there's not much choice but to think it's only Christians. That's assuming you don't want anything read into what you posted.

"Response: We seem to agree we are already paying for the uninsured who routinely access ER’s and use them as primary care providers. My point was that in the current system, our tax dollars already being used to pay for those who either do not or cannot pay for themselves, for any number of reasons that run the gamut from being destitute do to disability, to those who are lazy son of bi*%hes, to those who are professional gamers of the system, to those who own their own businesses but cannot afford the high cost of health insurance on an individual or family basis due to lack of leverage or buying power. Given that reality, we’d do much better to require everyone to be insured and to pay into the system. We can make that a viable reality by eliminating the enormous waste inherent in the current system. Enact reform as suggested by the guy from Whole Foods, close the loop on the gamers, accept we’ll continue to subsidize those who cannot take care of themselves due to disability, and work on a solution for the lazy sob’s. I don’t have a solution for the lazy sob’s and bow to anyone who does. Government/hippy co-op/not for profit corp, I don’t really care. We need to take a stab at an option for universal access to health insurance so that those who cannot access the current system can get on board with paying their way. We’re already being heavily taxed in the current system by subsidizing the uninsured in a wink and nod sort of way through the back door. We should legitimize the process and everyone should enter through the front door. We appear to be arguing semantics?"

No, it's how things are written!:D I think we probably agree on the problem but not necessarily the solution. The high deductible/co-pay option already exists and has for a long time. For someone who is never sick or injured, this is the least expensive way to have health insurance and always has been. I think some don't buy insurance because they won't go to a doctor unless something's hanging off by a thread or they're at death's door and at that point, they're on their own, anyway. I also think many people see how much some are paying and how much it can cost to sign up with COBRA (far more than I could buy it for when I lost a job) and don't bother to look into it. The problem is, and always has been, "Who pays for those who don't have insurance?" and it's always "The taxpayers". The comments about being cared for in a foreign country make it seem that everyone is cared for without regard to whether they can or will pay. If someone with no insurance goes to a country illegally, I seriously doubt they will see a doctor with no questions asked. I may be wrong about this. I still want to know why the US can't assert its sovereignty at the border when other countries can.

"Response: We don’t seem to disagree here. Again, the final paragraph in my last post read: “However, the devil is in the details and we need much more in the way of details from the Obama administration to even begin to formulate a reasoned preliminary judgment on the “plan”. It’s time for POTUS to provide the details. YMMV.”
I guess I should thank you for the affirmation???"

I was on a rolling rant. The number of people who still think he's 100% correct is dwindling, though and that's a good start.

I have to go- I'll be back.

bigmac
09-25-2009, 12:24 PM
The patient was bed-ridden and this was administered by the hospital staff (whoever that may have been).

He had been in for bypass surgery and never came out.

There would have to be so many failures on so many levels for a daily 10x overdose of coumadin to happen in a hospital that it boggles the mind. Just imagining the nurse saying "here Mr. Jones, here are your 10 coumadin tablets" is virtually beyond my comprehension.

I remain highly skeptical.

woftam
09-25-2009, 12:35 PM
There would have to be so many failures on so many levels for a daily 10x overdose of coumadin to happen in a hospital that it boggles the mind. Just imagining the nurse saying "here Mr. Jones, here are your 10 coumadin tablets" is virtually beyond my comprehension.

I remain highly skeptical.

Mistakes seem to happen too often. I had a nurse who tried to make me take medications that had been discontinued. She read the orders wrong. I had the advantage of being alert, awake and paying attention to my plan of treatment. (many are not in any condition to speak for themselves or have others on hand to do so 24/7) She got a bit salty when I suggested I would accept the meds only after reviewing doctor's orders. Didn't get an apology when she found out she was wrong either. B%*ch. Her supervisor got an ear full though/ :mad:

woftam
09-25-2009, 12:56 PM
Jim N wrote: "You didn't mention a single other group, so if it's read and interpreted literally, there's not much choice but to think it's only Christians. That's assuming you don't want anything read into what you posted."

As a Christian, I only feel qualified to make comments related to the teachings involved in faiths similar to my own. My thinking is that it is a shared ethical responsibility, regardless of one's faith or lack thereof.

Jim N wrote: "No, it's how things are written! I think we probably agree on the problem but not necessarily the solution. The high deductible/co-pay option already exists and has for a long time. For someone who is never sick or injured, this is the least expensive way to have health insurance and always has been. I think some don't buy insurance because they won't go to a doctor unless something's hanging off by a thread or they're at death's door and at that point, they're on their own, anyway. I also think many people see how much some are paying and how much it can cost to sign up with COBRA (far more than I could buy it for when I lost a job) and don't bother to look into it. The problem is, and always has been, "Who pays for those who don't have insurance?" and it's always "The taxpayers". The comments about being cared for in a foreign country make it seem that everyone is cared for without regard to whether they can or will pay. If someone with no insurance goes to a country illegally, I seriously doubt they will see a doctor with no questions asked. I may be wrong about this. I still want to know why the US can't assert its sovereignty at the border when other countries can."

Good, we can agree on the problem. The Whole Foods example included a high deductable policy fully paid for by the employer for employees working 30+ hrs. per week. That is combined with an graduated employer contribution to a health care savings fund that can be accumulate over time to the point of being used to cover the high deductable. I'm not prepared to debate HMO's vs the older more traditional style of insurance in the context of health insurance reform, but agree COBRA was tough for me too when I lost a job when I was younger. Took some serious sacrafice to afford the payments, especially when having mandatory child support payments even while having a joint custody arrangement. (I pay for my mistakes and take care of my children) Still, I correctly didn't think going without COBRA was a viable option for me. I agree, it's always the taxpayers that pay. I'm not suggesting we provide subsidized health care on a governmental level for illegal imigrants. I think Obama was clear on that point too. What is your solution?

Jim N wrote: "I was on a rolling rant. The number of people who still think he's 100% correct is dwindling, though and that's a good start."

I can respect a rant, especially one that generally agrees with me. I seldom agree with anyone 100%, particularly our elected officials. I try to give credit where it is due. Obama deserves credit for those items he gets right.

bigmac
09-25-2009, 02:04 PM
Mistakes seem to happen too often. I had a nurse who tried to make me take medications that had been discontinued. She read the orders wrong. I had the advantage of being alert, awake and paying attention to my plan of treatment. (many are not in any condition to speak for themselves or have others on hand to do so 24/7) She got a bit salty when I suggested I would accept the meds only after reviewing doctor's orders. Didn't get an apology when she found out she was wrong either. B%*ch. Her supervisor got an ear full though/ :mad:Yeh, I see medication errors occasionally too. It's the magnitude of this one that makes me inclined to be skeptical.

So, what was the medication that she screwed up on?

JimN
09-25-2009, 03:25 PM
There would have to be so many failures on so many levels for a daily 10x overdose of coumadin to happen in a hospital that it boggles the mind. Just imagining the nurse saying "here Mr. Jones, here are your 10 coumadin tablets" is virtually beyond my comprehension.

I remain highly skeptical.

I'm not sure that fixating on the dosage is the real point here- he got far too much and died. That's the problem and in that case, how is a value assigned to that person's life- future earnings, pain and suffering, loss of parent/spouse?

Is it possible that one nurse gave him the meds, either didn't write it down because of a distraction or it was illegible and another repeated the dose later? We all know this kind of thing shouldn't happen but it does.

JimN
09-25-2009, 03:49 PM
"As a Christian, I only feel qualified to make comments related to the teachings involved in faiths similar to my own. My thinking is that it is a shared ethical responsibility, regardless of one's faith or lack thereof."

The thing about religions, especially when three of them are based on the teachings of one person (Abraham) is that they all think their interpretation is correct and the only one that can be correct, to the point of almost two thousand years of violence over it. As soon as religion is brought into the government's discussion of "Who is responsible for the cost?", the small percentage who doesn't believe stands up and makes the loudest noise possible because they don't want to be forced to do something they don't believe in. The odd thing about this is that the majority who do believe is forced to do something they don't believe in. That's completely un-Democratic, where majority rules.

Personally, if one person has to foot the bill for people who can't afford it, the chosen faith or version of disbelief shouldn't enter into it. If everyone who can afford to pay for the ones who can't is a US taxpayer, nobody should get preferential treatment because of religion. As far as I'm concerned, EVERYONE in government should pay income taxes. The Founding Fathers had their expenses covered and that's all. They saw their government service as a duty to their new country.

"Good, we can agree on the problem. The Whole Foods example included a high deductable policy fully paid for by the employer for employees working 30+ hrs. per week. That is combined with an graduated employer contribution to a health care savings fund that can be accumulate over time to the point of being used to cover the high deductable. I'm not prepared to debate HMO's vs the older more traditional style of insurance in the context of health insurance reform, but agree COBRA was tough for me too when I lost a job when I was younger. Took some serious sacrifice to afford the payments, especially when having mandatory child support payments even while having a joint custody arrangement. (I pay for my mistakes and take care of my children) Still, I correctly didn't think going without COBRA was a viable option for me. I agree, it's always the taxpayers that pay. I'm not suggesting we provide subsidized health care on a governmental level for illegal imigrants. I think Obama was clear on that point too. What is your solution?"

Obama wasn't clear on that point until people made a stink over his use of Hillary's plan to force people to buy in or be penalized.

High deductible/copay plans have been around for a long time, as have short-term plans. Someone who loses their job just needs to check into them. I'm looking for a new carrier and BC/BS may be who I go with, like before.

Jim N wrote: "I was on a rolling rant. The number of people who still think he's 100% correct is dwindling, though and that's a good start."

"I can respect a rant, especially one that generally agrees with me. I seldom agree with anyone 100%, particularly our elected officials. I try to give credit where it is due. Obama deserves credit for those items he gets right."

I would think he deserves credit when he gets something right too, but other than pushing people's buttons, I'm not sure what he has done so far that was particularly amazing. The US Government and UAW are now the largest shareholders of two US automakers out of three. The mortgage industry is UFU, banks are in jeopardy or closing, the jobless rate is 12%, credit is tight and where it's not, the lenders are back to their same old garbage tactics. Credit card debt is at an all-time high (close to $1T) and because of the tight jobs and credit markets, saving has finally increased. Anyone who gives him credit for people saving money and not buying as much on credit doesn't see that as soon as things look better, they'll go back to the plastic and deeper in debt.

I wanted to like him but a couple of months into his campaign, I saw that he wanted to just spread money around "from those who have, based on ability, to those who haven't, based on need".

Also, government doesn't pay for anything. They come up with programs that take care of people because it gets them re-elected and make the taxpayers fork over the money, whether they agree with the plan, or not. The government just spends the money collected, minus all of the wasteful administrative expenses. The US government is the single largest employer in the country and we all know most of the military service people aren't well paid, by any stretch. Should the government run a program that's as large as health care? I don't think so.

bigmac
09-25-2009, 03:58 PM
I'm not sure that fixating on the dosage is the real point here- he got far too much and died. That's the problem and in that case, how is a value assigned to that person's life- future earnings, pain and suffering, loss of parent/spouse?

Is it possible that one nurse gave him the meds, either didn't write it down because of a distraction or it was illegible and another repeated the dose later? We all know this kind of thing shouldn't happen but it does.

Saying someone died of a coumadin overdose means that fixating on the dose is certainly the real point. Medication errors do happen - the most common errors in medicine. The things you mention are certainly possible mechanisms, along with several others I can think of.

However, that medication has been in wide use as an anticoagulant for more than 50 years. The doses, complications, management protocols are widely understood. Unlike some other medications, it would take a monumental screw up, not just once but several times, with failures by the lab, the pharmacy, several nurses over several shifts, and his doctors for someone to get enough of an overdose to die from it. I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that it's hard for me to imagine that level of broad-based incompetence, and the rarity of such an event "he got too much and he died" with that particular drug is the basis of my skepticism.

bradamerry
09-25-2009, 04:26 PM
I would get banned from this board, if I spoke from the heart on this topic.. Have a great weekend guys.. I'm going to Greeson for some fishing.

TX.X-30 fan
09-25-2009, 05:14 PM
I took some acetaminophen once when I thought I was taking ibuprofen. I was fine but it was frightening to say the least.

helton333
09-25-2009, 05:37 PM
One of the best arguments to consider I believe is once the g'ment has health care, you think they are going to sit by and allow Pepsi, McDonalds, Skoal and even Willy Wonka to continue to do what they do to make money? You'll see lots and lots of tie-in regulation to this - Particularly when they find out they have the power to "Make" people get healthier (thus saving expense).

It will grow g'ment into a beast within 5 years - I would bet my boat on it.

TX.X-30 fan
09-25-2009, 06:14 PM
One of the best arguments to consider I believe is once the g'ment has health care, you think they are going to sit by and allow Pepsi, McDonalds, Skoal and even Willy Wonka to continue to do what they do to make money? You'll see lots and lots of tie-in regulation to this - Particularly when they find out they have the power to "Make" people get healthier (thus saving expense).

It will grow g'ment into a beast within 5 years - I would bet my boat on it.




Great point and dead on accurate, I asked 4,000 posts ago for someone to tell me what the govt. does well???

Medicare, mail, train travel, SEC, education, energy.......................................

TX.X-30 fan
09-25-2009, 06:19 PM
I love when Ahbama said in the joint session he would pay for this with savings from fraud and abuse in medicare/medicaid and the next breath take over the entire health care industry. If it was not so sad it would be Monty Python sarcastically funny.

JimN
09-25-2009, 06:53 PM
The insurance industry has been trying to control what we do and how safely we do it, but it's not out of the kindness of their hearts that they care. They want to continue to collect the premiums from us, grow it (when they don't make bad investments that drive up our premiums) and keep it. If we're more safe when we drive, less people will be injured or killed, so they pay out less money. Look at what has happened with cars- throttle by wire, ABS brakes, steering by wire, proximity sensors, IR sensors, head position sensors and engine control. Why do they like these controls in cars? Because if the proximity sensors pick up a fast approaching vehicle or object, the computer can brake, steer or accelerate out of the way and if they come up with predictive air bags, we'll be cushioned before the crash, too. I don't see a point where premiums will go down. Ever. Once the government gets it's hooks into health care, we'll no doubt see all kinds of sin taxes and controls put on us so they don't have to pay out for claims.

One thing I see as very illogical is the lack of interest on the part of insurance companies in preventive medicine. It may be due to not being in that industry but it would make sense to require obese people to become involved with a dietitian, regular exercise programs and lifestyle counseling. Instead, they prescribe meds to lower cholesterol and ways of inhibiting appetite. Participation would be mandatory for any discounts to apply but if they're substantial, I think many people would do it. OTOH, substantial discount and insurance don't exactly go together.

JimN
09-25-2009, 07:17 PM
"Response: I never wrote that anyone is a racist if they don’t go along with the “New Plan”. Those are your words, not mine. As indicated by some of the posts in this thread, there are racists active on this forum that have posted in this thread. Either that or it’s just an unfortunate coincidence some of the forum members mistakenly made race baiting posts? I’m just calling the racists out without engaging in specific names as arguing with a racist on an internet forum does no good. Maybe pointing out race baiting posts will lower the frequency of the offending posts for a while? As for those who are racist, that’s between them and their maker."

Personally, I don't care if someone isn't white and I remember when the blacks I saw as a kid may not have had a lot but they were proud to have worked for it and they were able to call it their own, even here in MKE, where local government was far less than hospitable to minorities. I watched the riots on TV and was a pretty confused kid because what I heard people saying about what had been happening bore no resemblance to what I heard from my parents or others I was raised around. It was ugly and any blacks I met were generally very nice people, although the prevailing racial climate probably had a lot to do with that. Later, I moved into the city and had some great neighbors, some of whom I still see. OTOH, I don't think the way Welfare was implemented did much good. It made people dependent, bored and kept them poor. People who already have too much time on their hands are exactly the ones who should have gotten a better education but the government didn't see it that way. Wasn't that the point behind Boys' Club and Girl's Club? Keep the kids busy, give them something constructive to do, teach them to help others and they'll be less inclined to get into trouble- right?

"I’m all for personal responsibility. For example, I am a big fan of Bill Cosby for taking the portion of the “black community” to task that does not value education, does not take responsibility for their reproduction or their children, who populate gangs, and live off the labor of others. He does so even though it is politically incorrect and puts him at odds with more traditional black leaders of recent two decades. That argument is good for white, yellow, black and everything in between. Race doesn’t matter."

I watched Cosby on local cable access TV and the crowd was hooting, hollering, waving their arms in the air and saying Amen! The week after he was here, we had 7 murders in the inner city. I like what he has to say. Charles Barkley and Jim Brown had been giving speeches saying basically the same thing for years and I'd like to see all three go out on a speaking tour. I can't speak about other cities but here, people in the inner city are killing each other and other than the occasional neighborhood group responding to yet another tragic killing of a child or teenager, not enough is said about it, IMO.

"Response: That’s why a good start on the reasons why I’m not a Democrat. You’ll note I was not critical of Nixon, Ford, or Reagan. Johnson was perhaps our most corrupt President? That doesn’t begin to excuse the calculated corruption and war profiteering of W’s cronies."

I'm constantly amazed by how corrupt some of our Presidents have been when they spent so much time trying to rise above the tyrants, evil despots or dictators (take your pick). I don't care what party the POTUS is with, I want someone who's worthy of the position, not just the most ambitious, conniving, richest, biggest teeth or whatever. People put the Kennedys on a big pedestal and forget about Old Joe Kennedy's rum-running during Prohibition, influence before WWII and the rest of his dealings. I have to think the kids knew about some of it.

Jesus_Freak
09-26-2009, 06:31 AM
"The thing about religions, especially when three of them are [B]based on the teachings of one person (Abraham)

That is an enormous and emphatic NEGATIVE, captain! There is a make/break basis that creates mutual exclusivity among these three.

JimN
09-26-2009, 10:08 AM
That is an enormous and emphatic NEGATIVE, captain! There is a make/break basis that creates mutual exclusivity among these three.

Care to elaborate?

From Wiki:
"Muslims regard their religion as the completed and universal version of a monotheistic faith revealed to many times and places before, including, notably, to the prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Islamic tradition holds that previous messages and revelations have been changed and distorted over time."

"Many of its texts and traditions are central to the other Abrahamic religions, with Jewish history and the principles and ethics of Judaism having influenced Christianity and Islam"

"Christianity began as a Jewish sect[8][9] and is classified as an Abrahamic religion (see also Judeo-Christian).[10][11][12] Originating in the eastern Mediterranean, it quickly grew in size and influence over a few decades, and by the 4th century had become the dominant religion within the Roman Empire."

I didn't mean that they're the same but I erroneously posted that they're based on thee teachings of Abraham, which implies that it was only his teachings and his teachings aren't the whole basis for any of the three but they are called 'Abrahamic'. What I was trying to say is that they have commonality in their beginnings but all three have been at war with at least one of the others for a large percentage of the last 2000 years.

Ric
09-26-2009, 01:19 PM
I would get banned from this board, if I spoke from the heart on this topic.. Have a great weekend guys.. I'm going to Greeson for some fishing.
Have fun Brad. I'm still waiting on my middle class tax cut:cool:

TX.X-30 fan
09-26-2009, 02:07 PM
Have fun Brad. I'm still waiting on my middle class tax cut:cool:




When did you drop into the middle class?? :D

squishd
09-27-2009, 04:40 AM
I have an idea lets vote the lot out of office.

Jesus_Freak
09-27-2009, 06:51 AM
Care to elaborate?

Dichotomy # 1:

Christian view: Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God as He claimed, details of his birth and life prophesied of centuries before His birth, validated in the BC-dated dead sea scrolls finding.

Jewish view: Jesus is not the Messiah nor the Son of God. We are awaiting a military leader or someone else. We can only conclude Jesus must have been lying.

Muslim view: God cannot have a Son. We can only conclude Jesus must have been lying.

Dichotomy # 2:

Christian view: Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed at Moriah before God provided the lamb.

Jewish view: Ditto

Muslim view: Abraham took Ishmael to be sacrificed at Moriah before God provided the lamb.

I do not condone the "fighting" (to which you often allude), nor is it my problem to make excuses for it, but there are reasons it occurred and still occurs today.

Skipper
09-27-2009, 10:12 AM
I have an idea lets vote the lot out of office.

If our elections had been "monitored" like we do in many other countries...the monitors would have declared the election to be "invalid".

JimN
09-27-2009, 10:31 AM
Dichotomy # 1:

Christian view: Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God as He claimed, details of his birth and life prophesied of centuries before His birth, validated in the BC-dated dead sea scrolls finding.

Jewish view: Jesus is not the Messiah nor the Son of God. We are awaiting a military leader or someone else. We can only conclude Jesus must have been lying.

Muslim view: God cannot have a Son. We can only conclude Jesus must have been lying.

Dichotomy # 2:

Christian view: Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed at Moriah before God provided the lamb.

Jewish view: Ditto

Muslim view: Abraham took Ishmael to be sacrificed at Moriah before God provided the lamb.

I do not condone the "fighting" (to which you often allude), nor is it my problem to make excuses for it, but there are reasons it occurred and still occurs today.

I never said they were the same, equal, or anything like that but even in Christianity, schisms have occurred and groups have broken off. What I meant, and it's not my opinion- it's historically and theologically accurate, is that all three have a lot of common ground. Even in Islam, Jesus is a prophet. They all have the same God but the name reflects the language of the people. All three are called 'Abrahamic religions' and all three are absolutely certain that theirs is the only one that's correct, to the point of going to war over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

TX.X-30 fan
09-27-2009, 10:50 AM
If our elections had been "monitored" like we do in many other countries...the monitors would have declared the election to be "invalid".






ACORN................................ 8p

TX.X-30 fan
09-27-2009, 02:18 PM
We noticed!!!!!!!







Jerry Ballard USNRet
Tulare, CA 93274

The President of the United States
The White House
Washington DC

SUBJECT: 2ND Amendment Rights

Dear President Obama

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson

Today I read of your administrations plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk. During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition. We noticed.

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states. We all know that Islam, not America , has 57 states. We noticed.

When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, you tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over. We noticed..

Every time you apologized to other countries for America 's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. We noticed.

When your pastor of 20 years damned America and said that 9/11 was " America 's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. When you later disassociated yourself from that church and pastor because it was politically expedient to do so, we noticed.

When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now. Prior to your election to the highest office in this country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a remarkable one. We noticed

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions you appointed them to. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special affection or respect for this country and her traditions. We noticed.

You are 6 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation. We noticed.

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American", "racist". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated. We noticed.

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans. And we noticed.

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation even more. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than anyone since 9/11. You have failed us.
We noticed.

September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is...a disgrace.

When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office. You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.
We have noticed all these things. You were elected by the people but you have proven to be irresponsible and the federal budget Office has stated that when the dust of the democratic Bill signing is over, this Country will owe more than $25 Trillion Dollars which is $80,000.00 per house hold per year not including the interest.

Americans have a right under the Constitution to defend themselves and yet the federal Government and the States, both have created bills that are anti Constitutional and outright prevent the average American the right to defend his home. Yet it is a fact that those evil people out there who can get guns on the black market are responsible for much of the home crimes across America.

Therefore, Mr. President, The American people will act by removing Every member of congress and the Senate through the power of the vote. We may not win every election, but we believe that we will change the political map in 2010 and then in 2012, We will remove you.


Signed,
Jerry Ballard USNRet

Jesus_Freak
09-28-2009, 01:09 PM
...They all have the same God....

Let me try this again....

The Christian community holds that there is only One God; His name is Jesus Christ. He claimed it while He was on earth. Islam and Judaism do not agree. To say He is anything else is to call Him, and his eyewitnesses, a liar. The three "faiths" do not worship the same Creator. To attempt to diffuse a dichotomy in the name of semantics is, at best, illogical!

JimN
09-28-2009, 04:29 PM
Let me try this again....

The Christian community holds that there is only One God; His name is Jesus Christ. He claimed it while He was on earth. Islam and Judaism do not agree. To say He is anything else is to call Him, and his eyewitnesses, a liar. The three "faiths" do not worship the same Creator. To attempt to diffuse a dichotomy in the name of semantics is, at best, illogical!

So, the names Yahweh and Jehovah, both from the Bible, mean nothing? Jesus is called God, the Son and by saying that he's God, you're eliminating the other 2/3 of the Holy Trinity, Triune or whatever you want to call it. Who, in your opinion, is God, the Father? That's who I was taught is Yahweh, and Yahweh, Elohim and Allah are the same.

I was raised Catholic, so if you're from another denomination, it could explain the differences- I'm not familiar with Protestant, Church of Christ or the other forms of Christianity.

TMCNo1
09-28-2009, 04:43 PM
I need some of the medical stuff Moses was smokin'!:rolleyes:

TX.X-30 fan
09-28-2009, 07:48 PM
I know from personal experience that the church of christers are one very intolerant gang when it comes to religious differences between denominations. (say hello to my father-in-law) :D

Jesus_Freak
09-29-2009, 12:56 PM
So, the names Yahweh and Jehovah, both from the Bible, mean nothing? Jesus is called God, the Son and by saying that he's God, you're eliminating the other 2/3 of the Holy Trinity, Triune or whatever you want to call it. Who, in your opinion, is God, the Father? That's who I was taught is Yahweh, and Yahweh, Elohim and Allah are the same.

I was raised Catholic, so if you're from another denomination, it could explain the differences- I'm not familiar with Protestant, Church of Christ or the other forms of Christianity.

Those of various Christian denominations are, by definition, those who follow Christ. Christ made countless claims of deity. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are separated by a great chasm in how they respond to His claims of deity. Either He is to be worshipped or He is not. Those three faiths will never agree on this. I am not sure how we keep going in circles...My Muslim colleagues, for example, don't seem to get hung up on this issue of distinction. :)

mrprostar
09-29-2009, 01:41 PM
Each of those names have different translations and have different meanings. All are used in reference to God but in different ways. One is God the Father, another God the Son, another God All Knowing, etc... God has many names because it is difficult to describe Him with words in our finite world.

Skipper
09-29-2009, 04:18 PM
My daughter was watching "Wife Swap". One of the families were followers of "Rasta". They believe that the last king of Ethiopia was actually Jesus Christ. Seems like the religion is just an excuse to grow long hair and smoke a lot of weed.

I am sure they voted for Obama...8p

JimN
09-29-2009, 04:24 PM
Those of various Christian denominations are, by definition, those who follow Christ. Christ made countless claims of deity. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are separated by a great chasm in how they respond to His claims of deity. Either He is to be worshipped or He is not. Those three faiths will never agree on this. I am not sure how we keep going in circles...My Muslim colleagues, for example, don't seem to get hung up on this issue of distinction. :)

This kind of debate with no clear agreement is why the three have been at odds for so long, IMO. Jerusalem is a major Holy City for all three, too and they all want it for themselves. To be true to each religion, the followers can't really agree to the others' version, yet they talk about being tolerant and accepting others.

Personally, I'd like to see some peace among the religions but isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse?

JimN
09-29-2009, 04:28 PM
Each of those names have different translations and have different meanings. All are used in reference to God but in different ways. One is God the Father, another God the Son, another God All Knowing, etc... God has many names because it is difficult to describe Him with words in our finite world.

I think I read that Islam has 99 names for God in the Quran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_the_Qur%27an

I'm still trying to find out how a religion that started after 600 A.D. can be the only correct interpretation of the writings.

JimN
09-30-2009, 07:36 PM
And now, back to something that applies to the original topic:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27,0,5111855.story

TMCNo1
09-30-2009, 08:02 PM
What was this thread about? Bringing the Special Olympics to Detroit or what?:rolleyes:

Skipper
09-30-2009, 08:22 PM
What was this thread about? Bringing the Special Olympics to Detroit or what?:rolleyes:

No, to the white house. 8p

TX.X-30 fan
10-02-2009, 08:15 AM
More important is olympics for Chitcago. What an idiot.

SkiDog
10-02-2009, 08:45 AM
I hope the games go somewhere else, just to spite his a$$!

454Prostar190
10-02-2009, 10:59 AM
I hope the games go somewhere else, just to spite his a$$!

And, I feel the same way!

bigmac
10-02-2009, 11:32 AM
I hope the games go somewhere else, just to spite his a$$!

You got your wish...!!!!

TX.X-30 fan
10-03-2009, 06:59 PM
Best thing for our country the games did not end up in the corruption that is Chicago, and now with its favorite son in the white house it would have been a fleecing like nothing ever seen..


The Chicago scum was already in Washington looking for 8 billion.

bigmac
10-04-2009, 09:54 AM
It can't be cheap to fire up Air Force One for a trip to Copenhagen. I wonder what that rather unsuccessful junket ended up costing us?

TMCNo1
10-04-2009, 10:00 AM
It can't be cheap to fire up Air Force One for a trip to Copenhagen. I wonder what that rather unsuccessful junket ended up costing us?



He had a good teacher in Pelosi, she knows how to work the system at our expense!
I'm surprised he didn't take Biden with him to give him a couple hand jobs on the trip over and back!

Skipper
10-04-2009, 10:14 AM
It can't be cheap to fire up Air Force One for a trip to Copenhagen. I wonder what that rather unsuccessful junket ended up costing us?

Heck of a lot more than a MSG makes in a year. That's my guess anyhow.

TX.X-30 fan
10-04-2009, 04:30 PM
It can't be cheap to fire up Air Force One for a trip to Copenhagen. I wonder what that rather unsuccessful junket ended up costing us?




757= Michelle my belle

(3) 747's Head chief dude

Several C-130's and various other support planes.


All = One giant carbon trail......................... :D

TX.X-30 fan
10-04-2009, 04:34 PM
He had a good teacher in Pelosi, she knows how to work the system at our expense!
I'm surprised he didn't take Biden with him to give him a couple hand jobs on the trip over and back!




Damn #1 :D:D


He took Dick Durban (turban) for that. :D

JimN
10-04-2009, 05:24 PM
757= Michelle my belle

(3) 747's Head chief dude

Several C-130's and various other support planes.


All = One giant carbon trail......................... :D

And they're all fueled by bullshid.

Skipper
10-04-2009, 05:34 PM
Too bad he came back...8p

TX.X-30 fan
10-04-2009, 05:40 PM
=Skipper;637397]Too bad he came back...8p





What did the Danes ever do to you. :confused: :confused:

bigmac
10-11-2009, 07:40 PM
The Mayo Clinic loses money on health care. The expenses of running a health care facility, including many salaries and most equipment, are in large part covered by ongoing grants from the Mayo Foundation. Lots of money there.

Refusing to accept medicare/medicaid assignment, or more accurately physicians refusing to see patients that are on any government health plan (the "public option"), is a highly likely scenario.

I note that Mayo Clinic has announced that as of January 1st, they will no longer accept patients on Medicaid from Nebraska or Montana. Reimbursement rates are too low - they can't sustain that much of a loss on Medicaid patients from those states. These are the same Medicaid reimbursement rates that are in the crosshairs of virtually all of the "health insurance reform" bills before congress. Along with Medicare.

A taste of things to come.

Jorski
10-11-2009, 08:45 PM
That's more of an example of the problems with the patchwork of a system that you currently have...and an example of problem that does not exist in that evil Canadian medical system.

bigmac
10-11-2009, 08:46 PM
I agree. Unfortunately, it still appears to be better than the alternatives. It still represents fewer problems than the Canadian system would impose (has imposed).

Skipper
10-11-2009, 10:06 PM
That's more of an example of the problems with the patchwork of a system that you currently have...and an example of problem that does not exist in that evil Canadian medical system.

The only problem in America is when the leader of the greatest nation in the world imposes socialism on his people. If you like your health care, good for you. Stay in Canada.

The only good thing to come from Canada is that little hotty Whitney McClintock who ripped it up in the Worlds.

The only good thing to come from Hussain is...nothing.

By the way. Water temp in my part of the good ole' USof A is still in the low 70's. Probably be skiing well into November before even going to a shorty. :wavey:

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 11:17 AM
That's more of an example of the problems with the patchwork of a system that you currently have...and an example of problem that does not exist in that evil Canadian medical system.





Look at cancer survival rates, 18 mo. average wait for a colonoscopy. Your system is a disater and we want no part of it.

TMCNo1
10-12-2009, 11:32 AM
I just want to be able to get a cotton pickin' flu shot!:rolleyes:

Jorski
10-12-2009, 11:35 AM
Look at cancer survival rates, 18 mo. average wait for a colonoscopy. Your system is a disater and we want no part of it.

Actually, our system ranks almost identically with the US in this regard. Further, what do you think the wait time for a colonoscopy is for those Americans without insurance? There are particular cancers where Cuba or Japan happen to have the best survival rate; should we all copy their systems? Sometimes it has to do with a multitude of different factors (such as diet) that are outside of the quality of the medical system in question.

You seem to think that the average wait time for a colonoscopy is some huge issue in Canada. Well, not quite. The wait time reflects a national program to encourage early age based non-symptomatic screening (something that will increase survival rates, not hinder them). it just means that your family doctor books ahead of time on your behalf instead of waiting for your next annual physical.

It does NOT mean that if you have an indication of a problem or potential cancer that it would be an 18 month wait. In that case you would be seen in a matter of a day or two. What is funny about you picking colonoscopies in Canada as your example, is that it is one of the few diagnostic areas within our system that has private clinics.


Article: http://http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/

Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.

In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.
For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.

"Canadians always tend to complain about our health-care system," Dr. Mary Gospodarowicz, a cancer researcher with Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, told CTV News. "But this study shows us that in an independent study done by external bodies, the survival of cancer patients in Canada is among the best in the world



You have a very large disparity in the level of medical care your population experiences...some do receive excellent care, but many clearly do not:

However, the survival rate for the seventeen regions in the United States that were included in the study ranged from 78 per cent to 90 per cent.

The disparity in survival rates crossed racial lines in the U.S., as well, with white patients having a five-year survival rate of 84.7 per cent and black patients having a survival rate of 70.9 per cent.
The research was conducted by more than 100 scientists, led by Coleman of the Cancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

bigmac
10-12-2009, 11:46 AM
Actually, our system ranks almost identically with the US in this regard. Further, what do you think the wait time for a colonoscopy is for those Americans without insurance?

Cancer survival rates in Canada are OK. It's unlikely that their ridiculous waiting times for most medical care actually shortens lives. It's that system's utter indifference to patient pain, anxiety, and suffering that would be unpalatable to Americans.

The Canadian health care system is a choice that Canada made. It's not working very well, and works less well every year, but they're pretty much stuck with it since they no longer have the resources to make it work the way their people want it to work.

That system would absolutely never fly in America, at least for the forseeable future. American's are not yet willing to accept that level of socialism.

Jorski
10-12-2009, 11:50 AM
You really do continue to mischaracterize the Canadian system greatly.

To suggest that the current US system doesn't have the very same problems is funny when so many Americans do not receive coverage at all. you claim that our system is "getting worse every year" and yet we have a significant reduction in wait times in several key categories over recent years.

Big mac, you also say that: utter indifference to patient pain, anxiety, and suffering that would be unpalatable to Americans

What about those who do so poorly under your system? Do they not experience pain, anxiety and suffering?

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 12:01 PM
Do Americans go to Canada for treatment??? This fact alone makes the point very well.


People from all over the globe come to the US for cutting edge and standard treatments. This is where socialism/Marxist/communism cannot compete and thats in innovation.

bigmac
10-12-2009, 12:18 PM
You really do continue to mischaracterize the Canadian system greatly.


In your opinion. In MY opinion, YOU are the one that is mischaracterizing it.

Yes. Utter indifference to pain and suffering in your system. It's the nature of the beast.

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 12:37 PM
You mean get on the long list for ACL surgery and here are some slightly used crutches, yes I know your a mailman.............. sorry.

JimN
10-12-2009, 12:41 PM
I just want to be able to get a cotton pickin' flu shot!:rolleyes:

Last time I got a flu shot was in the late '70s or early '80s and I don't remember what they called it at the time but 2-3 days later, I was sick as a dog. I never get those vaccinations and I rarely get sick, even though I deal with a lot of people. I had a cold last month and it was the first one in close to 2 years.

Jorski
10-12-2009, 12:45 PM
People from all over the globe come to the US for cutting edge and standard treatments. This is where socialism/Marxist/communism cannot compete and thats in innovation.

Yes, they do...it's a shame that they receive that "cutting edge" US health care ahead of so many American citizens who simply do not receive anywhere near that standard of care. Is that the goal of your health care system? Should it be?

Bottom line is that in Canada, and most of the developed world we see health care as a right, and it seems that you prefer to see it as a priviledge. Just depends where you stand idealogically.

As for all of the "socialism/marxism" crap (a red herring if ever there was one), your country believes in some government delivery of services. There is a public education system in the US; and it's probably there because Americans generally think that everyone should have access to an education. Could you point to an expensive private school that is better than paricular public one? Of course, but that isn't why a public school system exists. Further, and perhaps more importantly they seem to be able to co-exist, so why can't a public option co-exist with a private one?

JimN
10-12-2009, 12:56 PM
You really do continue to mischaracterize the Canadian system greatly.

To suggest that the current US system doesn't have the very same problems is funny when so many Americans do not receive coverage at all. you claim that our system is "getting worse every year" and yet we have a significant reduction in wait times in several key categories over recent years.

Big mac, you also say that: utter indifference to patient pain, anxiety, and suffering that would be unpalatable to Americans

What about those who do so poorly under your system? Do they not experience pain, anxiety and suffering?

There's a big difference between the system not allowing someone to set up an appointment and someone not going in at all. If someone needs to see a specialist, it doesn't take long in the US but you just posted that "we have a significant reduction in wait times in several key categories" which, by itself, says there's a problem. The biggest problem here is that our system keeps getting more expensive, at a faster rate than the rest of the World. I read yesterday that on average, health care costs for the average American have risen 87% since 2000. That's insane and it's time for a complete audit of the whole system.

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 01:10 PM
Yes, they do...it's a shame that they receive that "cutting edge" US health care ahead of so many American citizens who simply do not receive anywhere near that standard of care. Is that the goal of your health care system? Should it be?

Bottom line is that in Canada, and most of the developed world we see health care as a right, and it seems that you prefer to see it as a priviledge. Just depends where you stand idealogically.As for all of the "socialism/marxism" crap (a red herring if ever there was one), your country believes in some government delivery of services. There is a public education system in the US; and it's probably there because Americans generally think that everyone should have access to an education. Could you point to an expensive private school that is better than paricular public one? Of course, but that isn't why a public school system exists. Further, and perhaps more importantly they seem to be able to co-exist, so why can't a public option co-exist with a private one?





We do not see it as a right, what is a right is freedom and self reliance.

Good point about education, yes we do have free public education and you could not have brought a better point to light. Our system of free public education really highlights whats wrong with government being involved in anything not strictly given them is the constitution.

Sometimes I wonder what your smoking?? Public and private?? OK this one seems obvious but here goes......... govt. has no need to make a profit, private must make a profit to stay in business.

Why would anyone want medicare or medicaid both are riddled with fraud.

JimN
10-12-2009, 01:12 PM
Yes, they do...it's a shame that they receive that "cutting edge" US health care ahead of so many American citizens who simply do not receive anywhere near that standard of care. Is that the goal of your health care system? Should it be?

Bottom line is that in Canada, and most of the developed world we see health care as a right, and it seems that you prefer to see it as a priviledge. Just depends where you stand idealogically.

As for all of the "socialism/marxism" crap (a red herring if ever there was one), your country believes in some government delivery of services. There is a public education system in the US; and it's probably there because Americans generally think that everyone should have access to an education. Could you point to an expensive private school that is better than paricular public one? Of course, but that isn't why a public school system exists. Further, and perhaps more importantly they seem to be able to co-exist, so why can't a public option co-exist with a private one?

Actually, we see it as a right too, but not somehting that should come free to everyone and paid for by a few. There's a difference and while we see it as a right, the people who set the costs and rates don't see it in the same way. Remember- a government that taxes its people doesn't pay for things, they spend money. The find services that can be provided without necessarily getting the best price, add to that to "cover their costs and then some" and tell us how much they need from us every year when we do our taxes. If a means for providing these services doesn't exist, they create an agency and sometimes staff it with the least competent people they can find, under the guise of equal opportunity/affirmative action when competency should be the criterion for the choice. Obviously, being a member of a racial/ethnic group shouldn't keep someone out of a job but it would be a fair fight if all applicants were equally qualified. Hiring someone who's illiterate, dishonest, can't communicate or not interested in doing their best because of a quota is wrong.


As far as expensive private schools vs public schools being better- there's no reason they can't co-exist but the way our public schools are run, it's the politicians who have ruined them. They have made it impossible to teach what is needed in a way that the students will understand.

JimN
10-12-2009, 01:24 PM
We do not see it as a right, what is a right is freedom and self reliance.

Good point about education, yes we do have free public education and you could not have brought a better point to light. Our system of free public education really highlights whats wrong with government being involved in anything not strictly given them is the constitution.

Sometimes I wonder what your smoking?? Public and private?? OK this one seems obvious but here goes......... govt. has no need to make a profit, private must make a profit to stay in business.

Why would anyone want medicare or medicaid both are riddled with fraud.

Gov't might not need to make a profit but breaking even by cutting out wasteful spending and throwing buckets of money on fires in an attempt to put them out wouldn't hurt. Weeding out useless employees is how the private sector cuts some costs and minimizes losses through theft but it seems to actually be rewarded in government.

Instead of spending money on what the people instruct the government to provide through our representatives, we're in the unenviable position of having to par for what they deem "necessary", with very little direct interaction between government and the people they're supposed to work for. They do so many favors for each other that we end up paying for, it's damn near impossible to keep everything straight and if all of the favors were called in at one time, it would take an eternity to settle.

Jorski
10-12-2009, 01:28 PM
Yes, but do you think that there should be a public school system ? Is that a right or a freedom?

Or is it just good for the country to have an educated population? Public education is surely better than no education?!

And, why is that any different than a healthy population?

Sometimes I wonder what your smoking?? Public and private?? OK this one seems obvious but here goes......... govt. has no need to make a profit, private must make a profit to stay in business.

Tex, regardless of what I smoke....No such thing in your world as public goods or externalities?

JimN
10-12-2009, 02:00 PM
Yes, but do you think that there should be a public school system ? Is that a right or a freedom?

Or is it just good for the country to have an educated population? Public education is surely better than no education?!

And, why is that any different than a healthy population?



Tex, regardless of what I smoke....No such thing in your world as public goods or externalities?

The problem here is that the education system is so wasteful. Too many people telling teachers what to teach, how to teach it and with what materials. Then, and I know teachers and their spouses will hate me for posting it, the teacher's union has such a stranglehold on the systems that bad teachers can't be weeded out.

Our educational system needs to be stripped down and reconfigured to meet the needs for the future. That means all students take and understand Math, English, Science and courses that help them reason/think critically, deal with people in a way that's constructive and learn how to manage their own lives. Parenting is something that should be taught more effectively. If they think they won't need these courses and drop out, they can fend for themselves and not expect to be supported by the rest of us. If they commit crimes, they serve the full sentence but the sentence must become a deterrent. While they're incarcerated, they must learn a skill that makes them useful in society. Everyone is interested in something, but using that new skill to commit more and worse crimes will be met with stiffer penalties.

Poor people from around the world are coming here and kicking our assses in math and science, learning English and succeeding where people who were born here are failing miserably. That's a problem that government shouldn't be needed for- people in America need to raise their kids better and kids need to think about something other than the next drink/drug, being in their gang, the next crime, video games and nailing the girl they're interested in at that moment. They also need to realize that they won't be the next big entertainer, athlete or leader unless they actually have a lot of talent and potential in that area [I]and are willing to work to become better at everything that would take them to that level[./I]

A large part of the problem is that many kids don't want to be in school at all so they have no interest in learning what is being taught, even if it will keep them out of prison, allow them to rise out of whatever he!! they're in and become what they want. Some go in with the attitude that there's nothing for them there, so they quit. It's impossible to teach those kids until they see that life isn't about being able to give up whenever the going gets tough.

IMO, the post WWII period made it possible to replace the word 'need' with 'want'. I can't think of anyone who needs an 18,000 sq ft house on 9 acres with the old 4000 sw ft house serving as the guest house, but I worked on one.

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 02:28 PM
First of all nothing is free and certainly not public education. The money is being confiscated in the form of onerous taxation. Schools should be run on the local level with no mandates from washington. I think the whole system like Jim says need to be scrapped. When someone is given something for free it is not the same as earning it. So free I say no. No way free health care either just creates bad behavior and saps society of resources.

Don't pretend you are clueless about the end-game jorski. The dude has stated it many times, he wants the single payer, so this is the way to get to his goal of controlling health care in America. All the guidelines in the plan force everyone into the system quickly down the road. Taxing company paid health care is one, change jobs and you have to go public and on.


We need to amend the constitution to allow only property owners to vote as was intended.

:D



Yes, but do you think that there should be a public school system ? Is that a right or a freedom?

Or is it just good for the country to have an educated population? Public education is surely better than no education?!

And, why is that any different than a healthy population?



Tex, regardless of what I smoke....No such thing in your world as public goods or externalities?

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Think about that for a minute, this buffoon was elected by people that all they do is take from the country. How insane is it to allow welfare recipients vote, college students on govt assistance??? You are allowing groups to vote for the candidate that will take from the producers and give to the freeloaders?? INSANE.

Jorski
10-12-2009, 03:35 PM
Poor people from around the world are coming here and kicking our assses in math and science, learning English and succeeding where people who were born here are failing miserably.

Well, "poor people from around the world are coming here and kicking our assses in math and science", for the most part are schooled in governemnt run public systems...not private.

Just because there are problems in the public system doesn't mean that you can't have an effective public system as if it were some irrefutable physical property.

Skipper
10-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Well, "poor people from around the world are coming here and kicking our assses in math and science", for the most part are schooled in governemnt run public systems...not private.

Just because there are problems in the public system doesn't mean that you can't have an effective public system as if it were some irrefutable physical property.

Look at what a great job we do at the motor vehicle department. I am sure the government should be able to lick this little health care thing. :confused:

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 04:37 PM
Name one thing the federal govt. does well?? Hard to do and you would like to give them control over 1/7th on the economy. Seems flat out ignorant on face value now doesn't it??

Kevin 89MC
10-12-2009, 04:39 PM
Interesting comments from Congressman Mike Rogers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Sums it up pretty nicely I think.
Kevin

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 04:48 PM
Interesting comments from Congressman Mike Rogers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Sums it up pretty nicely I think.
Kevin

Michigan has a keeper in that guy.

JimN
10-12-2009, 06:31 PM
First of all nothing is free and certainly not public education. The money is being confiscated in the form of onerous taxation. Schools should be run on the local level with no mandates from washington. I think the whole system like Jim says need to be scrapped. When someone is given something for free it is not the same as earning it. So free I say no. No way free health care either just creates bad behavior and saps society of resources.

Don't pretend you are clueless about the end-game jorski. The dude has stated it many times, he wants the single payer, so this is the way to get to his goal of controlling health care in America. All the guidelines in the plan force everyone into the system quickly down the road. Taxing company paid health care is one, change jobs and you have to go public and on.


We need to amend the constitution to allow only property owners to vote as was intended.

:D

I wouldn't have a problem with a national curriculum if it was up to date, factually accurate and designed to be dynamic. Washington politicizes everything that goes near it, so the plan I would like to see is to have each state submit their recommendations. Since it's so easy to sort and compile data on computers, the common points could be set to the side and the differences can be debated so some consensus can be reached. Once the framework is in place, school boards and the national education agency can take input from industries so their needs can be filled before a shortage arrives. Also, people need to be taught that finding "the one thing they want to do with their life" can and will change during their life. Guidance councilors are either unable/unwilling to do their job, in very short supply, parents don't know/care what they're doing or may want want to let someone else do that for their kids. If the schools don't make it their #1/2 job to make sure every student has a clue about the outside world after high school, they're letting anyone other than the best and brightest slip through the cracks, into a life of mediocrity, or worse.

As far as "onerous taxation", the ones who need free schools aren't necessarily the ones who are paying for it because it's funded by the property tax bill. Wisconsin taxes the shyte out of us, Milwaukee County adds its share and the Mke School System gets us drunk and doesn't even call when they say they will. The MKE school budget is $1.7B and it's one of the worst in the country. The Mayor wants to take over because it's so bad.

Once people get what they need at no cost to them, they immediately stop caring about abusing it. Look at Welfare- people stopped working and when people sit around all day, they get bored and one of the most popular ways of combating boredom is getting wasted. Then, ethics, morals and conscience go away and we have the crap we're dealing with now. Look at public housing- they trash the place and don't give a rat's azz.The heat is included, so they leave the windows wide open with the heat cranked up in the middle of a cold winter. Why? Because they don't have to pay for it! I guarantee that if we go to a one-payer system at no cost out of pocket to a large segment of the population, they'll be there for any supplies they can grab, they'll go in for every little thing that they should be able to handle and the cost will go up as the quality of care providers will drop. Also, people will become less self-sufficient than they already are, and it's already at a pathetic state right now. If the national power grid and communications are interrupted for some reason, food supply is slowed and we need to go back to wilderness survival, I would guess that the half of the US population that normally depends on easy access to these will either die or resort to stealing what they need. That's assuming the ones who already steal don't increase their crimes.

JimN
10-12-2009, 06:42 PM
Well, "poor people from around the world are coming here and kicking our assses in math and science", for the most part are schooled in government run public systems...not private.

Just because there are problems in the public system doesn't mean that you can't have an effective public system as if it were some irrefutable physical property.

But they're not schooled in our public school system and that's our problem. The people who determine what is taught, when and how accurately are too arrogant to think that the rest of the world may be doing a better job at some things than the US. I sat next to a guy in HS freshman algebra and he just shook his head when he saw his mid-term grade because he got a B. He got that B because he was so bored, having come to the US from Prague when the Soviets invaded. He said he had covered the same material in what is our 3rd grade. From sophomore year until graduation, he went to Marquette University and UW-Milwaukee for his math and science classes, unless he wanted to take some of them at our school.

We teach kids that there are no winners or losers, everything has to be politically correct so nobody is offended, people are handed what they need because they're too lazy or stupid to get it for themselves and stay in school, their family life is in the crapper so they decide that a gang is better, use booze and drugs to escape and sit around watching TV as long as they possibly can, as if it's a contest to see who can pizz away the most time in their life. We teach that money and possessions are the goal, but not how to get them. Gang life is glamorized and family life is seen as lame. The crap on TV makes people think they have it good, or at least not as bad as some. People here need a slap in the face about some things and nobody has hte cajones to tell them that they're doing a terrible job as parents and members of government.

BTW- the fact that Canada has about 1/10 of the US population and almost half of the entire Canadian population is here as illegal aliens, you have no way of knowing how our "government" really works because you don't have to deal with them. As a complete outsider, I have no way of telling you how Canada is run, but I see some of the issues. As usual, even our schools are run the same way as the federal government- as inefficiently as possible, with less than stellar results for the majority of the people who pass through it, allowing the worst employees to stay on because their union makes it damn near impossible to get rid of the waste.

TX.X-30 fan
10-12-2009, 06:53 PM
Good stuff JimN. Smaller districts would be a start in the school system. Get rid of these big city ISD's and inject more local and community oversee of the curriculum. Back to discipline is the only way to go, corporal would be my choice but in this nanny society I would settle for a three strikes and you are now gone. The taxpayer is through because the child does not value the education.

JimN
10-12-2009, 06:56 PM
Good stuff JimN. Smaller districts would be a start in the school system. Get rid of these big city ISD's and inject more local and community oversee of the curriculum. Back to discipline is the only way to go, corporal would be my choice but in this nanny society I would settle for a three strikes and you are now gone. The taxpayer is through because the child does not value the education.

I think three strikes should get them into some kind of boot camp but since it's public education, how can you force them to go?

Jorski
10-12-2009, 09:02 PM
almost half of the entire Canadian population is here as illegal aliens, you have no way of knowing how our "government" really works because you don't have to deal with them.


Honestly, Jimn...what are you talking about????

JimN
10-12-2009, 10:08 PM
.


Honestly, Jimn...what are you talking about????

That comment had to do with the number of illegals here, which amount to a very large percentage of the entire Canadian population (upon re-checking, it's close to 1/3, not 1/2). How would Canada deal with that situation? They're tapping us dry. You probably think they're all making great contributions to the economy, though.

Jorski
10-12-2009, 10:20 PM
That's certainly an issue; just not the one this thread is about.;)

JimN
10-12-2009, 11:17 PM
That's certainly an issue; just not the one this thread is about.;)

How is it NOT related? If someone provides goods and services that have a cost associated to them to people who can't or won't pay for them, they're either contributing to a loss of income/profit or the rest of the customers (in this situation, they're patients) have to pay for them.

Jorski
10-13-2009, 10:52 AM
Who says that you have to provide health care to illegal aliens?

JimN
10-13-2009, 10:58 AM
Who says that you have to provide health care to illegal aliens?

Certainly not me but they're doing it. I thought we already discussed this and I though you were one of those who said nobody is turned away in foreign countries.

They want to give illegals driver's licenses, too. They can't read the fargin signs, yet they want to give them a license to drive. I have to take a test that includes reading signs and knowing what the sign shapes mean, all of the rules, etc and I see people breaking traffic laws EVERY DAY. Mexicans who come here get Social Security benefits, food stamps and I saw a commercial two nights ago for "government cell phones". ***?

Jorski
10-13-2009, 11:00 AM
I never said that.

bigmac
10-13-2009, 11:39 AM
Way off track.

The issue is Obama's desire for health care reform. I agree with Tex, his ultimate goal would be single-payor. That ain't gonna happen in the forseeable future. The merits of Canada's health care policy, or lack thereof, are irrelevant. Americans would never accept that level of socialism, nor would they accept the element of rationing that that system necessarily imposes.

Furthermore, the US would never be able to afford it - utilization is increasing, and health care technology is becoming more and more necessary and more and more expensive. Additionally, Canadian lifestyle is fundamentally healthier than that in the US (lower obesity rates), the US is much larger and more population-diverse, has a huge illegal immigrant burden, and the entire baby boom generation population spike is increasingly prevalent in the health care needs arena. No possible way would Canada's system work here, even IF the US population would go along (no) and IF the US medical profession would accept it (HELL no).

Jorski
10-13-2009, 11:54 AM
IF the US medical profession would accept it (HELL no).

Funny (and anecdotal), but a friend of mine was offered a significant position in surgery and research at the Mayo Clinic...didn't take it, was making more after tax here than he would have there.

Funny thing this "SOCIALISM"

bigmac
10-13-2009, 12:37 PM
They must not have wanted your buddy very much.

Anyway, pay isn't the issue. Most doctors in the US are underpaid as it is, even compared to Canada. No doctor that I know of has any expectation that his/her pay is going to go up anytime soon no matter what happens in Congress.

Jorski
10-13-2009, 10:36 PM
They must not have wanted your buddy very much.

Funny, that they would bring his family down several times after they identified him as a world leader in his area of expertise/research and was offered a very significant and position...not that it would matter to you. You see things how you chose to see them.

In this particular case, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'll leave it at that.

TMCNo1
10-13-2009, 10:54 PM
:rolleyes:........................................ .............52492

bigmac
10-14-2009, 07:37 AM
In this particular case, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'll leave it at that.


That would be great if you would. But I doubt it.

Not knowing what you're talking about hasn't stopped you. You have a remarkably entrenched position apparently based entirely on anecdote. It's puzzling.

...not that it would matter to you. You see things how you chose to see them.

OMG. That has to be the funniest accusation you've made yet.

bigmac
10-14-2009, 08:43 AM
I mentioned earlier that the Mayo Clinic, as of January 1, will no longer be seeing Medicaid patients from Nebraska and Montana because the reimbursement rates from those contracts are too low to be financially sustainable. They have Medicaid contracts with only 7 states (including Minnesota) and lost over $100 million dollars on those patients last year. Nebraska and Montana were the two worst reimbursement rates, and therefore are being shed.

I also see that one of the Mayo family medicine clinics in Arizona (Glendale - Phoenix suburb) will be opting out of Medicare for the same reason (inadequate reimbursement).

Last year, the Mayo Clinic barely broke even financially for the first time that I can ever remember. The number of patients they saw was stable (525,000) but patient revenue was down by over 30%. In the past, they have always been able to more than make up for that usual loss with income from the Mayo Foundation, but now they're in trouble because of that decreased reimbursement in addition to investment losses and decreased charitable giving.

Note that most medical provider systems and clinics in the US don't have the level of charitable financial support that Mayo has. Most of those institutions are in trouble too. Many of them are university-based, in part state-supported, but states are cutting back on aid to those institutions too.

Here's the point: Mayo lost $100 million on Medicaid reimbursement from 7 states. They lost $840 milllion on Medicare patients. They can barely keep up financially under CURRENT reimbursement rates, and even then only by making up those losses from gifts to the Mayo Foundation. So, what about YOUR doctor or clinic? The Baucus bill gets HALF of its financial viability from $400 billion in reimbursement cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Especially in the face of severe Family Practice and surgeon shortages, how will the Baucus bill affect the availability of health care in the United States? When I do the math, it does not look good.

Skipper
10-14-2009, 09:03 AM
In a past life I was a Highway Patrolman in Arizona for eight years. Used to encounter these "career criminals" who seemed to bounce in and out of jail continually. One night after a brief pursuit, I arrested this for DUI. He was surprised that I was able to catch his space ship. Then he demanded that I release him. He claimed diplomatic immunity because he was an ambassador from Earth to the other planets.

Eventually, this clown took a plea for sixteen months in prison for his seventh DUI conviction in like three years. I saw him again about two years later. He told me that while he was in prison he got his teeth fixed and surgery on his knee. (Yeah, I arrested him for DUI, again.)

So bear with me here, it used to be that criminals found ways to get arrested so they could get health care. Now, they have one of their own in the oval office so they don't have to go to jail to get free health care. And those who actually work and pay taxes will foot the bill.

At least with the old system we used to dress them up in pink stripes and make them clean the roads. 8p

woftam
10-14-2009, 10:48 AM
....clipped

So bear with me here, it used to be that criminals found ways to get arrested so they could get health care. Now, they have one of their own in the oval office so they don't have to go to jail to get free health care. And those who actually work and pay taxes will foot the bill.

At least with the old system we used to dress them up in pink stripes and make them clean the roads. 8p

You don’t have to like him and you are free to say just about any disparaging thing you’d like to about him. However, you are factually wrong. Our current POTUS could better be described as a good family man and successful politician. If you equate all politicians with being criminals, then your post would be much more factually correct. ;)

TMCNo1
10-14-2009, 10:57 AM
You don’t have to like him and you are free to say just about any disparaging thing you’d like to about him. However, you are factually wrong. Our current POTUS could better be described as a good family man and successful politician. If you equate all politicians with being criminals, then your post would be much more factually correct. ;)

All politicians are criminals, there ya go, I said it!:rolleyes: Flame on!

JimN
10-14-2009, 11:18 AM
You don’t have to like him and you are free to say just about any disparaging thing you’d like to about him. However, you are factually wrong. Our current POTUS could better be described as a good family man and successful politician. If you equate all politicians with being criminals, then your post would be much more factually correct. ;)

What does the character of a person's associates say about that person?

woftam
10-14-2009, 11:58 AM
All politicians are criminals, there ya go, I said it!:rolleyes: Flame on!

I don't disagree about all politicians being criminals.;)

woftam
10-14-2009, 12:00 PM
What does the character of a person's associates say about that person?

Sometimes a lot and sometimes not so much. Depends upon the person. Jesus associated exclusively with sinners when on this earth. Are you implying all your associates are angelic? ;)

Jesus_Freak
10-14-2009, 12:27 PM
Jesus associated exclusively with sinners when on this earth.

Good one.....

JimN
10-14-2009, 12:51 PM
Sometimes a lot and sometimes not so much. Depends upon the person. Jesus associated exclusively with sinners when on this earth. Are you implying all your associates are angelic? ;)

Every single one of them, unless the rest of youse are included. (:D) But we're not discussing me, we're discussing someone who was elected as President against all odds and whose associates include anarchists, known terrorists, ACORN and others whose political beliefs are diametrically opposed to the way the US government works.

Another ACORN worker was convicted in MKE for filling out multiple voter registration cards. Got a slap on the wrists, as usual.

JimN
10-14-2009, 12:52 PM
Good one.....

Was Obama sent here to save mankind? I think not.

Skipper
10-14-2009, 01:10 PM
Sometimes a lot and sometimes not so much. Depends upon the person. Jesus associated exclusively with sinners when on this earth. Are you implying all your associates are angelic? ;)

Holy cow! You are not implying that Hussain is the new Messiah? Since after all, his association with Acorn was key and essential to his winning the presidential election. There is no question that organization is corrupt to the core! His association with a convicted terrorist, a man who poses for his book cover while standing on the American Flag, is too much. A president who is an advocate for gay...everything. No, if you want to make this a biblical discussion, I believe that Jesus would toss these criminals out on their arse just like he cleaned up his temple. Hussain is much more like the anti-Christ than Jesus. :confused:

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...clearly the only people to profit from this health care plan of Hussain's are those who do not pay taxes, do not make an effort to support themselves, and expect that the government must provide everything for them because of (you pick the weak excuse). Pretty much, the same people that got him elected (thanks in large part to Acorn). 8p

If I were president, I would put Acorn on the "Axis of Evil" and declare them a terrorist organization. But, lucky for everyone, I am just a little worm on a big hook. :)

woftam
10-14-2009, 01:10 PM
Every single one of them, unless the rest of youse are included. (:D) But we're not discussing me, we're discussing someone who was elected as President against all odds and whose associates include anarchists, known terrorists, ACORN and others whose political beliefs are diametrically opposed to the way the US government works.

Another ACORN worker was convicted in MKE for filling out multiple voter registration cards. Got a slap on the wrists, as usual.

For a follower, associates matter a great deal. For a leader, associates won't impact character much.

My associates are from a broad spectrum. Not too many on the far fringes, right or left.

You're cherry picking here. Obama's associates also run the gamut. That's probably good if their views are kept in perspective? Much as a varied gene pool is beneficial to a species, varied views in a democratic government should be a positive. You know, children with six toes on one foot and all…….;)

p.s. no love here for ACORN.

TMCNo1
10-14-2009, 01:28 PM
The way I see it, we haven't seen anything yet.
If he makes it into a second term, there will be things, people, and schemes discovered, that will blow our minds and will make the Blankovich scandal sound like a nursery rhyme.

woftam
10-14-2009, 01:42 PM
Holy cow! You are not implying that Hussain is the new Messiah? Since after all, his association with Acorn was key and essential to his winning the presidential election. There is no question that organization is corrupt to the core! His association with a convicted terrorist, a man who poses for his book cover while standing on the American Flag, is too much. A president who is an advocate for gay...everything. No, if you want to make this a biblical discussion, I believe that Jesus would toss these criminals out on their arse just like he cleaned up his temple. Hussain is much more like the anti-Christ than Jesus. :confused:

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...clearly the only people to profit from this health care plan of Hussain's are those who do not pay taxes, do not make an effort to support themselves, and expect that the government must provide everything for them because of (you pick the weak excuse). Pretty much, the same people that got him elected (thanks in large part to Acorn). 8p

If I were president, I would put Acorn on the "Axis of Evil" and declare them a terrorist organization. But, lucky for everyone, I am just a little worm on a big hook. :)

Holy cow. No. You are attributing words to me that I did not speak/write/type.
Your response didn't exactly address mine???
Rant on…..
Blood paid for your right to rant and for my right to respond and even for some idiot to stand on and/or burn the flag. That’s the United States. Love it, leave it, or don’t….....

p.s. I did imply inbreeding is bad.

JimN
10-14-2009, 02:25 PM
For a follower, associates matter a great deal. For a leader, associates won't impact character much.

My associates are from a broad spectrum. Not too many on the far fringes, right or left.

You're cherry picking here. Obama's associates also run the gamut. That's probably good if their views are kept in perspective? Much as a varied gene pool is beneficial to a species, varied views in a democratic government should be a positive. You know, children with six toes on one foot and all…….;)

p.s. no love here for ACORN.

I don't have a problem with views that vary but when people are installed in his government as 'Czars', without any vetting process, without the scrutiny of the people who voted him in or his opponents and their views are as radical as they are as well as showing their lack of concern for paying their income taxes, I see it as a problem. The Fed chairman "forgot" to pay his? That's BS and he still got in. If that had happened with a Republican NOMINEE, they would be tossed on their butt.

I'd like the IRS to audit every high-level government official, including Obama and I don't care what party they belong to.

My cousin's cat has 6 toes on one foot.

woftam
10-14-2009, 02:46 PM
I don't have a problem with views that vary but when people are installed in his government as 'Czars', without any vetting process, without the scrutiny of the people who voted him in or his opponents and their views are as radical as they are as well as showing their lack of concern for paying their income taxes, I see it as a problem. The Fed chairman "forgot" to pay his? That's BS and he still got in. If that had happened with a Republican NOMINEE, they would be tossed on their butt.

I'd like the IRS to audit every high-level government official, including Obama and I don't care what party they belong to.

My cousin's cat has 6 toes on one foot.

I have a problem with Czars in the U.S. Government too. They are not exclusive to democratic administrations. Stupid naming. Czar didn't work out too well for most Russians, yet we borrow the failed term???

Forgot to pay his. Doesn't belong as Fed Chair. Agreed. Would a Republican nominee get in under similar circumstances (adjusted for party affiliation), I'd guess so. Not agreed here.

I'd like to get rid of the IRS. A consumption tax sounds a lot more equatable to me, even though I tend to consume more than average. The IRS is evil, I don't care what party you belong to.

Just so long as your cousin doesn't have six toes....;)

JimN
10-14-2009, 03:13 PM
I have a problem with Czars in the U.S. Government too. They are not exclusive to democratic administrations. Stupid naming. Czar didn't work out too well for most Russians, yet we borrow the failed term???

Forgot to pay his. Doesn't belong as Fed Chair. Agreed. Would a Republican nominee get in under similar circumstances (adjusted for party affiliation), I'd guess so. Not agreed here.

I'd like to get rid of the IRS. A consumption tax sounds a lot more equatable to me, even though I tend to consume more than average. The IRS is evil, I don't care what party you belong to.

Just so long as your cousin doesn't have six toes....;)

Would a Republican get in? Depends on who is in Congress, I would say. They shouldn't, though.

How would you not tax the spleen out of people who can't get out of consuming more? How do you deal with business expenses? How about educational costs and the supplies that are needed?

I don't like the IRS either, but government has responsibilities, for which they need something from all of us. Once their responsibilities end, they're just piling on for themselves and doing favors for each other. Wisconsin saved over 8300 public sector jobs with the stimulus money they got. Unfortunately, I would expect nothing else. Government is far too big and wasteful. Period.

woftam
10-14-2009, 06:02 PM
Would a Republican get in? Depends on who is in Congress, I would say. They shouldn't, though.

How would you not tax the spleen out of people who can't get out of consuming more? How do you deal with business expenses? How about educational costs and the supplies that are needed?

I don't like the IRS either, but government has responsibilities, for which they need something from all of us. Once their responsibilities end, they're just piling on for themselves and doing favors for each other. Wisconsin saved over 8300 public sector jobs with the stimulus money they got. Unfortunately, I would expect nothing else. Government is far too big and wasteful. Period.


Agreed, it depends upon who is in congress. Also agreed, they shouldn’t.
Neither the democrats nor the republicans have a monopoly on graft, greed, or stupidity.
The current two party system isn’t serving citizens well, but it’s great for the longevity of each party. Ross Perot came closest in recent times to shaking up that rotten apple cart.

Consume less and pay less tax. Consume more and pay more tax. Same for business as it is for individuals. Much of consumption is optional.
Smarter people than me will have to come up with a solution regarding items that promote public good, like education and educational materials. I’d guess a very limited incentive like lower consumption tax rates for education – with a caution to keep the system simple, with very few exceptions, for the system to be easy to understand and thus increase its effectiveness.

I’m not saying the government doesn’t have responsibilities that we all need to share by paying our fair share of taxes. I’m proposing that taxation is done in a more fair, equitable, and efficient manner. The IRS is a woefully inefficient collection agency with unprecedented powers. The tax code is so complicated that our best experts cannot even agree upon what the details of the tax code actually mean. We need a simple and streamlined tax code with collection at point of service. Think of the savings that we will realize if the IRS is abolished.

TMCNo1
10-14-2009, 06:36 PM
Enough said,
52501

Skipper
10-14-2009, 07:12 PM
Holy cow. No. You are attributing words to me that I did not speak/write/type.
Your response didn't exactly address mine???
Rant on…..
Blood paid for your right to rant and for my right to respond and even for some idiot to stand on and/or burn the flag. That’s the United States. Love it, leave it, or don’t….....

p.s. I did imply inbreeding is bad.

I did not mean to rant. Forgive me.

I disagree that what you have described is the United States. Perhaps it is what our country has become after years of being trampled on by corrupt politicians pushing their own twisted agendas.

But it is not our nation. Not the nation that my father fought for in the Pacific during WWII and Korea. That he bled for with three purple hearts. Not the nation that I fight for.

Those taxes that you despise, they are only going to get worse when Hussain forces his health care program on our nation. But the majority of the people who voted for him do not pay any taxes nor will they see any increase in taxes, just benefits of a corrupt politician pushing his own twisted agenda.

I bet he has six toes on one foot. Probably was actually born in Canada too.

TX.X-30 fan
10-14-2009, 07:14 PM
Oh no IRS is only going to grow, the new tax is VAT (value added tax) that is collected all along the products trail.

It will come to citizens not wiling to live under a government that treats its citizenry like so many cattle. The stimulus money has done nothing but keep government running as JimN said, and saved a few jobs that contribute nothing to our country. We are in for dark days ahead and its just what the dude in the house now wanted, he runs down this nation at every opportunity and apologises for a great nation that he had nothing to do with. He is a complete disgrace to our once proud country.


Any Idiot could have created jobs with that much money, it was never his goal to create jobs. He is exactly the man some knew he was for years, all one had to do was look at what the man said and who he was associated with. We as a people are too dumb now to realise anything.

TX.X-30 fan
10-14-2009, 07:17 PM
Health care, Cap & Trade, VAT............. and just getting going................. These togather will crush the middle class, and the only place to turn will be uncle ahbama.

woftam
10-14-2009, 07:35 PM
Health care, Cap & Trade, VAT............. and just getting going................. These togather will crush the middle class, and the only place to turn will be uncle ahbama.
You can add "fees", "user fees", "tolls", and "entrance fees" when they are related to local, state, or federal gvpt. They all just mean "tax".

woftam
10-14-2009, 07:37 PM
I did not mean to rant. Forgive me.

I disagree that what you have described is the United States. Perhaps it is what our country has become after years of being trampled on by corrupt politicians pushing their own twisted agendas.

But it is not our nation. Not the nation that my father fought for in the Pacific during WWII and Korea. That he bled for with three purple hearts. Not the nation that I fight for.

Those taxes that you despise, they are only going to get worse when Hussain forces his health care program on our nation. But the majority of the people who voted for him do not pay any taxes nor will they see any increase in taxes, just benefits of a corrupt politician pushing his own twisted agenda.

I bet he has six toes on one foot. Probably was actually born in Canada too.

I won't comment on most of your post, but the point I was trying to make is that everyone who paid in blood for the freedoms we enjoy also paid for those who exercise freedoms we don't agree with. Flag burning/stomping is a case on point. And that is our United States, always has been.

Jesus_Freak
10-14-2009, 07:42 PM
Was Obama sent here to save mankind? I think not.

No sir :). There is only ONE Messiah.

Skipper
10-14-2009, 07:51 PM
I won't comment on most of your post, but the point I was trying to make is that everyone who paid in blood for the freedoms we enjoy also paid for those who exercise freedoms we don't agree with. Flag burning/stomping is a case on point. And that is our United States, always has been.

"Flag burning/stomping is a case on point. And that is our United States, always has been". Totally disagree...but tired of discussing it.

Hussain is the nail in the coffin.

TX.X-30 fan
10-14-2009, 07:57 PM
He is messianic with a teleprompter, ric has a friend who's friend says that his buddy's friend said he is the antichrist.


I'm not convinced yet. :D

JimN
10-14-2009, 10:46 PM
"Flag burning/stomping is a case on point. And that is our United States, always has been". Totally disagree...but tired of discussing it.

Hussain is the nail in the coffin.

Slimeball lawyers have made it possible for people to stomp on and burn the American flag, under the guise of Free Speech. Coincidentally, those slimeball lawyers were defending on people who were in college at the same time as many members of Congress and in fact, may have defended some of them. I'd like to find out who falls in this group and remove them from office. The same people who walked on or burned flags that weren't worn out and disposed of properly were offended when people said "America- love it or leave it", yet the same freedom was being exercised by both.

Finding new and more devious ways to get people out of trouble has led us to where we are, IMO. At this point, there's no reason for anyone to take responsibility for anything bad.

woftam
10-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Slimeball lawyers have made it possible for people to stomp on and burn the American flag, under the guise of Free Speech. Coincidentally, those slimeball lawyers were defending on people who were in college at the same time as many members of Congress and in fact, may have defended some of them. I'd like to find out who falls in this group and remove them from office. The same people who walked on or burned flags that weren't worn out and disposed of properly were offended when people said "America- love it or leave it", yet the same freedom was being exercised by both.

Finding new and more devious ways to get people out of trouble has led us to where we are, IMO. At this point, there's no reason for anyone to take responsibility for anything bad.

Good/Bad and Legal/Illegal are not the same. There are plenty of legal things that are bad and at least a few illegal things that are good. (a fine Cuban cigar comes to mind)

It is the very same right to free speech that allows one citizen to be critical of our government while another suggests we should support a Ozzie and Harriet vision of America without question. Each position is far from having all the correct answers. I have close family and friends who have served and sacrificed. Regarding flag burners, their most common response (from the ones who lived) was that they fought for the rights of idiots too. Some cared a great deal about the symbolism associated with the flag, while others grew to not take it so seriously. They fought and they gave blood. It's not my place to judge. I don't personally agree with flag burning, but I don't support anyone being arrested for it either. I just chalk it up to a poor upbringing or a mental deficiency.

As for your statement, "I'd like to find out who falls in this group and remove them from office.", if you can make that happen, I may have to bow to you.;)

Edit: My wife is an attorney. She's no slimeball. There are some slimeball lawyers out there, just as there are some slimeball MC owners. With only minor effort, I've found it easy to keep company only with non-slimeball lawyers and non-slimeball MC owners. YMMV.

funk
11-05-2009, 11:25 AM
The take that I like to side with..

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

bcampbe7
12-09-2009, 09:54 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/democratic-senators-agree-drop-government-run-insurance-option/